1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope against the Defendant, the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the appointed parties sought the payment of wages as an immediate contractor. Besides, the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the appointed parties D, and E separately sought the payment of wages as an employer. The first instance court accepted the part of the Plaintiff and the appointed parties’ claim for wages as an immediate contractor, and dismissed the part of the claim for wages as the Plaintiff, the appointed parties D, and E’s claim for wages as an employer.

Accordingly, the Defendant only appealed against the cited portion of the claim for “wages as the immediate contractor,” and the subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the cited portion of the claim for “wages as the immediate contractor.”

2. The grounds for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, given that the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, the part concerning Co-Defendant B of the first instance court, which was separated and confirmed, 3. Goon part of the first instance court, is as follows: 4.17 to 7.3.

“2) First of all, the Defendant asserts that since the instant construction works do not fall under construction works under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the joint and several provisions of Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act cannot be applied. However, since the Defendant’s business attitude falls under interior construction works under Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Table 1, and since it is apparent that the instant construction works fall under interior construction works as a principal household, etc., it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion on different premise. (B) Next, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request from the Plaintiff on August 24, 2016, after receiving a written confirmation from the field workers of the instant construction works, including the Plaintiff and the designated parties, and at the time B was until August 2016.