beta
Text
1. The part regarding Defendant F among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. Defendant C and D are jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 4,085,00.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a human resources dispatch service provider, Defendant D is a representative of G.
B. Defendant C entered into a contract with Defendant D’s mutual lending of G and Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”), and Defendant C was dispatched from the Plaintiff during the aforementioned site from December 20, 2016 to January 24, 2017.
C. Defendant C received the amount of the human resources dispatched from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s trade name as KRW 14,085,00 in total, and the Plaintiff received the amount of the human resources cost of KRW 10,00,000 from Defendant E.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 (payment of labor cost), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D and C
A. If the determination of the cause of the claim is based on the determination, Defendant C is the party to the human resources supply contract with the Plaintiff. Defendant D constitutes a person who is the representative of G and is the nominal name holder of Defendant C, and the said Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining human resources price of KRW 4,085,00,00, and damages for delay at each ratio under the Commercial Act and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 25, 2017, following the date of final human resources supply transaction
B. Defendant D’s assertion argues to the effect that Defendant D did not have an obligation to pay the remaining amount of human resources supply since it was not a direct human resources supply transaction party with the Plaintiff.
However, this cannot be accepted as it corresponds to the argument that conflict with the responsibility of the nominal lender under the Commercial Code.
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was requested by Defendant E’s actual operator and Nonparty H, his agent, and the Plaintiff supplied 5 through 7 human resources per day from January 3, 2017 to January 24, 2017.
Accordingly, the manpower supply cost is 18,870,000 won, which is 12,500,000 won among them.