1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in worker dispatch business, human resources supply business, etc.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant carried out construction works in Daejeon Seo-dong 22-25, Seosung-dong, Daejeon-dong, and the Plaintiff supplied human resources from September 2012 at the said construction site, and the aforementioned supplied human resources were paid daily allowances directly at the construction site until October 18, 2012.

C. From October 18, 2012 to November 18, 2012, the Plaintiff directly paid daily allowances to the human resources dispatched from the above construction site from October 18, 2012 to November 18, 2012, and the price is KRW 3,690,000.

From November 19, 2012 to December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff paid 10,659,000 won to the Plaintiff for the human resources supplied to the said construction site.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, Eul's 3 and 4 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, from October 18, 2012, with respect to the human resources supplied at the above construction site, the Plaintiff paid the said daily allowance to the Plaintiff’s husband and the Defendant agreed to pay the said daily allowance to the Plaintiff upon filing a claim with the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay 3,690,000 won for unpaid human resources supply from October 18, 2012 to November 18 of the same year and delay damages.

On September 19, 2012, the defendant is a beneficiary of the construction work in the above construction site, and subcontracted the above construction work to the non-party A on November 2, 2012, and further subcontracted the above construction work to the non-party B on November 2, 2012. Thus, the defendant did not have any obligation to pay human resources supply cost.

B. As to whom the judgment is a party to the contract, the intention of the actor and the other party is identical.