beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 3,692,400 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from February 25, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff supplied human resources from February 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015 in relation to the construction of a military cooking restaurant that the Defendant contracted by the Ministry of National Defense (hereinafter “instant construction”). From February 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 131,478,60 out of the labor cost of KRW 165,171,00.
[Reasons for Recognition] The statements in Gap's 1 to 7, the witness Eul's testimony
2. Summary of and judgment on the party's assertion
A. The purport of the argument is that the plaintiff is the other party to the above human resources supply contract, and even if not, he is only the defendant's on-site agent's request and thus, the defendant should be held liable for it. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he did not conclude any contract with the plaintiff, and that he did not have any obligation to pay labor cost to the plaintiff, since he did not enter into a contract with the non-party C, and paid all construction cost to the plaintiff.
B. As to whether the aforementioned unpaid labor costs are liable for payment to the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was that the Plaintiff entered into a human resources supply contract with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on this premise is rejected.
The fact that the acting representation and the acting representation are established is different from the fact that the requisite fact is so different that if there is an assertion of acting representation, or in this case, the court should judge whether the acting representation is established or not (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu181, Mar. 27, 1990). However, if the parties did not explicitly assert, but the purport of the assertion can be harmed by the assertion of acting representation, it cannot be viewed as unlawful by the court's determination of whether the acting representation is established or not.
Therefore, the plaintiff.