1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) year from March 12, 2014 to August 1, 2014, with respect to KRW 700,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of C, supplied the Defendant with a worker on daily basis between the Defendant and the Defendant who engages in the vessel log processing business, etc., but, in the case of skilled workers, the Defendant directly paid the relevant worker a daily amount of KRW 120,000 per person per day, and in the case of skilled workers, the Defendant agreed to pay the daily amount of KRW 90,000 per person to the relevant worker and pay the remainder of KRW 30,000 per person to the Plaintiff as the commission (hereinafter

B. In accordance with the instant agreement, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with daily worker on March 2013 and April 201 of the same year, and the fees therefrom are KRW 26,776,340.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2-3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 21,776,340 after deducting five million won from the fees under the agreement of this case, which was paid by the plaintiff at KRW 26,776,340, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s defense defense is a defense to the effect that the instant agreement is null and void in violation of Article 33(1) of the Employment Security Act. If the supply contract concluded between a labor supply business operator who did not obtain permission and the supply business operator is deemed valid in violation of the aforementioned provision, it would result in allowing a person to intervene in the employment of others for profit prohibited under Article 9 of the Labor Standards Act, and would also go against the purport of prohibiting an unauthorized labor supply business under the Direct Employment Security Act. Thus, labor supply contract concluded between a labor supply business operator and a supply business operator who violated the Employment Security Act is invalid.

(Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56130, 56147 Decided June 25, 2004). Here, the instant agreement refers to the agreement.