beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion operates the manpower office. The Plaintiff sent the trees to the Sejong City C site (hereinafter “instant site”) that the Defendant had contracted and executed, from December 10, 2014 to February 7, 2015, and the Defendant agreed to pay the wages of the trees directly to the head of the tree group.
Nevertheless, as the Defendant did not pay the above wage to the tree trees and the Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 3778,00,000 to the tree trees until February 7, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay 37780,000 to the Plaintiff and the delay damages therefor.
2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant written a letter of payment stating that "in paying the 4 Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong 8 on February 7, 2015, the defendant signed it on the ground that he will directly dispose of the Do Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff specifically submitted a detailed statement of wage payment (Evidence No. 2), a written confirmation (Evidence No. 3-1), a wage claim (Evidence No. 3-2-7), and a work confirmation (Evidence No. 4) as evidence that the Plaintiff paid it to the tree trees. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the items of Evidence No. 1, 2, and 4, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the labor cost for the tree trees incurred in the 4 Dong and 8 Dong on the instant site only with the above evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, in light of the following circumstances:
The plaintiff's assertion is insufficient to recognize that the above tree personnel expenses amount to KRW 37780,00,000, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
① As to the instant court’s order to specifically explain the developments leading up to inserting trees to the instant site, the Plaintiff received a request from E, a subcontractor, who is the 4 Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong and eight subcontractors at the instant site, and consented to 4 Dong Dong Dong and eight Dong in the instant site.