The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the court below determined that the defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid wages and retirement allowances to the plaintiff as a temporary work agency, since it is reasonable to view that the defendant concluded a labor contract with the plaintiff with the identity and independence of the employer and dispatched the plaintiff to the hospital of this case. Thus, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the hospital of this case were in the position of the temporary agency worker, the temporary work agency, and the user company, and when applying the Labor Standards Act (Articles 34, 43, and 48) on retirement allowances and wages pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers, the temporary work agency shall be deemed the employer.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on workers under the Labor Standards Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.