1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 15, 2015, the Defendant, as a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, received a supply of reinforced concrete and soil work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among D’s extension works of the Cridge from Cridge, and further subcontracted the instant construction work to E (G’s actual operator who registered his/her business in the name of F) who is not the constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, each entry of Eul 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is employed by E and from February 3, 2016 to the same year.

4. The defendant did not receive the total amount of KRW 8,160,000 for March and April even though he worked as a waterway until 26. Since he subcontracted the instant construction work to E, who is not a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and he did not pay wages to the plaintiff who is his employee, the defendant, who is the immediate contractor, is liable to pay the plaintiff's wages pursuant to Article 44-2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

3. Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that “Where a construction business is conducted on two or more occasions and a subcontractor who is not a constructor under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry fails to pay wages to his/her employees, a immediately upper tier contractor shall be jointly and severally liable with the subcontractor to pay wages to workers employed by the subcontractor.”

According to the facts acknowledged above, the construction of this case has been conducted two or more contracts in the construction industry, and the defendant is a constructor under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and G (F) or E is not a constructor under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the same Act.

However, with regard to the fact that the plaintiff is a worker employed by the defendant's subcontractor G(F) or E, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 9, 19, 23, 24 is alone.