The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is a company that runs a facility maintenance business, construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a company that runs plant construction business, machinery equipment business, etc.

B. The Defendant was awarded a subcontract from C for the construction of the production and installation of the instant construction works for the production and installation of the 2 campus D 2 campus C (hereinafter “instant construction works”), and the Plaintiff was on duty at the site of the instant construction works from October 3, 2018 to November 31, 2018.

(c)

Wages that the Plaintiff did not receive at the construction site of the instant case are KRW 5,581,250.

(c)

On July 29, 2019, the head of the District Labor Office in Daejeon Regional Labor Agency issued a business owner’s confirmation letter, such as overdue wages, with the purport of “the Plaintiff’s delayed payment, Defendant, and direct constructor C.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The summary of the party’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with C, who is a direct constructor, because the Defendant did not pay KRW 5,851,250 even though he/she employed the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not enter into an employment contract with C and that it did not have a contract with the defendant.

B. Determination 1) According to the evidence No. 1, whether the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s employee, the fact that the labor contract was prepared between the Plaintiff and C is recognized.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant employed the Plaintiff for the execution of the instant construction, taking into account the results of factual inquiries by the court of the first instance on the Daejeon District Labor Office branch office of the Daejeon District Labor Office and the overall purport of the arguments on the changes:

It is reasonable to view it.

① On April 12, 2019, C’s staff E does not directly employ a plaintiff in C at the time of the call between the labor supervisor and the labor supervisor at the branch office of the Daejeon Regional Labor Office, but the plaintiff is under the jurisdiction of the defendant.