1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. On June 13, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 13, 2017 after delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and subsequently, rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant by public notice. After which, on September 11, 2017, the Defendant peruse

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed by the Defendant within two weeks from September 11, 2017, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice was served by public notice, is lawful as it was filed within the lawful appeal period.

A. According to the statement of Gap's certificate of overdue wages, the plaintiff is employed by the defendant from February 17, 2016 to the same year.

3. Until December 12, 198, at the construction site of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)’s steel structure reinforcement work site (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”), construction of building facilities was conducted, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 2,040,000 to the Plaintiff during the above period. According to the above recognition, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff a unpaid wage of KRW 2,040,000 and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant introduced the plaintiff to C and did not directly employ the plaintiff, and the plaintiff concluded a labor contract with C, which makes it impossible to respond to the plaintiff's request. According to the records of the case and the records of the case and the decision of non-prosecution, C's on-site director D was accused of the investigation agency on the ground that he did not pay wages, etc. to workers E, F, and G in the construction site of this case, but it can only be acknowledged that he was subject to "non-prosecution disposition" due to the cancellation of complaint by the complainant under the circumstances where it is unclear whether he was the employer's status, and the 5 (Written Statement) E, the respondent, directly from the principal office C.