beta
Text
1. The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff falling under the above part of the revocation.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the F and G Co., Ltd. and each of the above companies entered into a contract for the construction works and structures among the OE that the Plaintiff was contracted by the F and G Co., Ltd. on August 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction works”).
Defendant B worked for the Plaintiff Company from August 20, 2013 to May 31, 2014, and is the site manager of the instant construction works, who has overall control over the execution of the instant construction works.
Defendant D is a worker on duty who works as the head of the Working Group in charge of managing and supervising daily workers at the construction site of this case from February 4, 2014 to July 20, 2014.
B. (1) The facts charged against the Defendants were lodged a complaint against the Defendants, and the prosecution was instituted as follows. (A) Defendant D’s fraud, at the construction site of this case located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H around March 2014, upon which I had not worked as a worker at the construction site of this case, I submitted to the Plaintiff a statement of claim for personnel expenses of KRW 3,780,000 for 25 hours a day, even though I had not worked as a worker at the construction site of this case, I had not worked as a worker at the construction site of this case, and submitted to the Plaintiff a statement of claim for personnel expenses of KRW 3,780,000 for 25 hours a day, and thereafter, he received KRW 3,780,00 from the Plaintiff as personnel expenses of the said I around March 2014, and received KRW 29,64,000 from that day to July 2014.
B. Defendant B’s fraud, fraud of cost of using equipment, and fraud of cost of purchasing materials, ① Defendant B, at the construction site of this case around March 2014, submitted to the Plaintiff a statement of claim for personnel expenses claimed by Defendant D, knowing that Defendant D had falsely claimed personnel expenses of workers who did not work at the construction site of this case and did not work at the construction site of this case.