1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2, 2017, the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) who received a contract from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) for the “E Corporation” (hereinafter “instant construction”) was awarded a subcontract for the part of the instant construction work to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Plaintiff, under employment by Defendant B, provided labor from March 2, 2018 to March 10, 2018, as the construction site of this case, and the wages from the provision of the above labor amounting to KRW 1.620,000 (=180,00 won/day x 9 days).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 4, 5, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant B and received KRW 180,000 per day at the construction site of this case, and provided labor for nine days. Defendant B is an employer who employs the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay 1620,000 won and damages for delay to the Plaintiff as a contractor in the direct position of Defendant B, who is an unregistered constructor, pursuant to Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act

B. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C paid all the construction cost under the instant contract, including the wages of the workers requested by Defendant B to Defendant B. Defendant B did not request the payment of wages to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B did not state the Plaintiff’s work in the details of wage report reported to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service. As such, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have provided labor at the construction site of this case, and the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff would be claiming wages against Defendant C in collusion with Defendant B.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant C alone leads to the above facts of recognition and the plaintiff actually provided labor at the construction site of this case.