The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the contractor of the instant construction work is C and the Defendant merely provides labor to C, and it cannot be deemed that the contractor is the E.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The subject of a violation of Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act of the relevant legal doctrine is an employer. Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “employer” refers to an employer, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of an employer for matters concerning workers.

The term "business owner" refers to a business owner, and the term "person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to the matters relating to workers" refers to a person who is given specific authority and responsibility by the business owner with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as personnel management, wages, welfare, and labor management, or orders, direction, supervision, etc. of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do15915, Jun. 11, 2015). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the defendant agreed to pay wages consistently from the investigative agency to the court below by introducing the construction site of this case to the court below, and consistently agreed to pay wages by the defendant while taking overall charge of the construction site of this case.

(2) The construction owner of the instant construction project, F, the main owner of the instant construction project, prepared the instant construction project contract in the form in which C and the Defendant together, and explained the details of the construction project to the Defendant.

The testimony was made, ③ the Defendant, while denying the partnership with C, failed to know well about the construction, attempted the Defendant to prepare a quotation and contract, ordered E to give KRW 1.50,00 per day, and was in charge of all the work as the head of the work team.