1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the purport that the Defendant’s workplace worked from March 3, 2014 to September 15, 2014, but did not receive KRW 25,80,000 for six months.

B. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000,00 from the Young-gun District Court Young-dong Branch 201, Cheongju District Court Decision 201Da5551, Dec. 30, 2014, to the effect that the Plaintiff, who had worked as the field director at the site of the Housing Site Development Project in the Chungcheong-gun C Housing Site Development Project site, did not deliver a document specifying the method of calculating wages, working hours, and annual paid leave.

C. Around March 3, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for formal trial by arguing that there was no labor contract concluded with the Plaintiff.

Cheongju District Court (Cheongju District Court) found the defendant guilty on July 2, 2015 as the defendant's criminal facts identical to those of the above summary order.

E. The Defendant appealed as the Cheongju District Court 2015No819, and the Cheongju District Court, on January 15, 2016, dismissed the Defendant’s appeal by deeming that the Defendant had employed the Plaintiff as an employee.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant were related to the Plaintiff’s labor contract, but the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff wages to the Plaintiff and did not perform the obligation under the labor contract.

As a result, the Plaintiff suffered 24,750,000 won which is calculated on the basis of monthly salary paid by the previous workplace in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to work in a place other than the total amount of expenses paid first by the Plaintiff.

B. The phrase “non-performance of one cash payment obligation” refers only to the delay of performance, and it is difficult to consider the impossibility of performance or incomplete performance.

Therefore, damages caused by nonperformance of monetary payment obligation are the statutory interest rate due to delay of performance.