The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff's ancillary.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant dispatched workers to D factories from June 2018 to September 2018 to cooperation companies of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “D”).

B. On June 2018, the Defendant issued tax invoices in the name of D for KRW 1,551,00 and KRW 748,000, which occurred by the employees dispatched to D using a restaurant within the factory, and paid in a way that offsets the amount that they should receive from D by receiving tax invoices in the name of D.

(c)

On August 1, 2018, the Plaintiff continued to operate a restaurant in D’s premises since August 1, 2018.

There is no evidence to acknowledge one of the arguments. Rather, the defendant has settled a cafeteria with D before that time, so it is difficult to recognize the operator of the cafeteria prior to August 1, 2018 as the plaintiff at least in relation to the defendant.

From September 3, 2018 to October 2018, the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of KRW 1,029,60,00 (the value added to KRW 936,00,00) with the Defendant’s employees employed by the Defendant during the period from August 2018 to August 2018, (i) the supply price of KRW 936,00,000 (the value added to KRW 93,600), and (ii) the food-type KRW 521,40,00 (the supply price of KRW 474,00,00 value added to KRW 47,40), which was taken from September 3, 2018 to the 20th of the same month, but the Defendant rejected the payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5 (in the case of documentary evidence with a number, including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the argument is that the plaintiff primarily sought an employer's responsibility for the payment of a meal unit based on the contract and the conjunctive tort (the document prepared on February 13, 2020). For this, the defendant has been dispatched from August 1, 2018 to D as of August 1, 2018 when the plaintiff started to operate a restaurant within D, the employees belonging to the defendant dispatched to D have paid the incidental expenses by using a corporate card at the outside restaurant, not a restaurant, and the plaintiff has sought payment.