1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant jointly with C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) decided to build four multi-household houses on the ground of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Defendant, etc. ordered H (hereinafter “H”) on February 6, 2012 to undertake the said multi-household house construction work (hereinafter “instant entire construction”).

B. Around 2012, H Company subcontracted to the Plaintiff the steel processing and ready-mixed construction among the entire instant construction works (hereinafter “instant steel construction”).

C. The Plaintiff completed the instant steel bars around the end of 2012 or around the beginning of 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1, I's testimony of a witness at the trial and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. While the Plaintiff asserted that the instant steel construction was carried out, the said construction was suspended due to the financial difficulties of H company’s H company in paying construction cost due to its financial difficulties.

Accordingly, the Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff would pay the construction cost instead of the H company if the Plaintiff completed the non-construction part of the instant steel construction work.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the instant steel bars, and the Plaintiff, as the head of the steel bars, led the said construction, and paid 7.2 million won wages to the workers who performed the said construction together with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 7.2 million and the unpaid wage of KRW 2.5 million to the Plaintiff.

In the first instance court, the Defendant sought the payment of 9.7 million won for the Plaintiff’s own wage, and the first instance court thereafter, the Defendant asserts that the payment of 4 workers’ wage is unlawful as it is an alteration to a claim without identity of the claim basis.

However, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is seeking the payment of construction cost or wages for the entire construction work, and the Plaintiff’s argument at the trial.