2012Na83522 (Consolidation) Nullification of dismissal

2012Na83539 (Consolidation) Nullification of dismissal

2012Na83546 (Consolidation) Nullification of dismissal

2012Na83553 (Consolidation) Nullification of dismissal

2012Na83560 (Consolidation) Nullification of dismissal

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9. 1

[Judgment of the court below]

Representative Director 000

Attorney ○-○, et al.

(Joint), 2010 Gohap20627 (Joint), 2011 Gohap7171 (Joint), 2011 Gohap

1061 (Consolidation), 2011 Gohap16106 (Joint Judgment)

2. A. On December 24, 2006, the Defendant confirmed that each dismissal made to Plaintiff A on January 29, 2007 to Plaintiff B, to Plaintiff C on November 10, 2008, to Plaintiff D on December 6, 2009, to Plaintiff E on October 21, 201, to Plaintiff F on February 2, 201, to Plaintiff G on April 28, 201, to Plaintiff H on July 17, 201, and to Plaintiff I on August 2, 2011.

B. The defendant from January 1, 200 to the date of returning the above plaintiff A, from February 1, 2007 to the date of returning the plaintiff, KRW 1,785,00 each month, from February 1, 2007 to February 1, 2007 to the date of returning the above plaintiff, KRW 1,515,00 each month to December 1, 2008 to the date of returning the plaintiff C, KRW 1,815,00 each month, from January 1, 2010 to the date of returning the above plaintiff, KRW 1,815,00 each month to the date of returning the plaintiff, KRW 1,867, KRW 50 each month to the above plaintiff, KRW 1,00 each month from October 1, 201 to the date of returning the plaintiff to the above plaintiff, KRW 2,01 to the date of returning the plaintiff to the plaintiff from October 2, 201 to the date of returning the plaintiff to the above 1, KRW 1, 10 to the above 210.7th 1.

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

4. Paragraph 2-b. above may be provisionally executed.

1. The primary purport of the claim

It is as stated in paragraph (2) of this Article.

2. Preliminary purport of claim

Defendant: from January 1, 2007 to the time when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, KRW 1,537,00 per month to Plaintiff A, and KRW 1,537,00

1,785,00 won each month from February 1, 2007 to the time when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and Plaintiff C

From December 1, 2008 to the time when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the 1,515,00 won per month, and the Plaintiff D on January 1, 2010

J. From November 1, 2010 to the time the judgment in this case became final and conclusive, 1, 815, 000 won per month, and Plaintiff E

From March 1, 2011 to the time when the judgment in this case becomes final and conclusive, 1, 867, 500 won, and Plaintiff F

To the end of each month, KRW 1,762,50 per month, and KRW 500 per month, from May 1, 201 to the end of the judgment of this case.

Monthly 2, 310,00 won and Plaintiff H from August 1, 2011 to the time the instant judgment becomes final and conclusive. 2,272,50

The payment of KRW 2,190,00 each month to Plaintiff I from September 1, 201 to the time the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

(n)

In Section 5 to 6, the actual substance of the tax accounts were “any match assistants, including the plaintiffs, etc., joined the instant trade union by September 2002.” The sports assistants, including the plaintiffs A, B, D, E, F, G, and I, joined the instant trade union by September 17, 2002 (the plaintiff H appears to have joined the instant trade union on April 17, 2003 after commencing their business as the sports assistants of the instant golf club). The actual substance of the tax accounts was signed under Section 19 of Section 8, “A”, “C, D, E, E, F, G, and I, signed and signed the instant trade union. The actual substance of the tax accounts was considered to have joined the JCC autonomy Council.”

"4) On August 22, 2005, the defendant sent to a separate self-governing council of 2005, a letter stating that "the organization that the defendant did not recognize is a representative and appears to be able to be able to manage autonomous members by carrying out business affairs of Gyeonggi Assistants, and that "after selecting a person (a separate self-governing member) who is able to observe the principles in accordance with the agreement to hear and fairly manage business affairs of Gyeonggi Assistants because he could not expect fair handling of business affairs related to business affairs of Gyeonggi Assistants," and then, "after selecting a person (a separate self-governing member, who is able to handle business affairs

9.7. Separate Self-Governing Members appointed ○○ and west ○ as a regular representative of a separate Self-Governing Council and an incidental representative.

On September 7, 2005, ○○○ and west○ announced that they will perform all duties in the future in accordance with the instant self-governing rules as the regular representative and incidental titles of the separate self-governing council.

A. The plaintiffs' primary grounds for the action

The plaintiffs constitute workers under the Labor Standards Act who provide labor to the defendant in a subordinate relationship with the purpose of wages and practically fall under the rules of employment set by the defendant. The above rules of employment set forth the retirement age at 42 years at 55. The above rules of employment are against the rules of employment set by the defendant. <2> The Labor Standards Act prohibiting discriminatory treatment on the ground of gender (sex) and the Act on the Equal Employment Opportunity and the Support for Work and Home-Support, which prohibit the discriminatory treatment on the ground of gender (sex), and ③ the rules of employment set forth in the rules of employment to reduce the retirement age are null and void due to the lack of consent procedures set by the majority of the workers. Thus, the plaintiffs' retirement age is 55 years old or is 47 years old under the previous rules of employment before the amendment of the rules of employment of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's employment exclusion from the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs reached the retirement age at 42 years of age set forth in the rules of employment of this case is invalid as a preliminary measure against the plaintiffs, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs' surrounding wages from the 1 month following month.

Even if the plaintiffs do not constitute workers under the Labor Standards Act, the plaintiffs are in the status of workers under the Trade Union Act, and therefore, the labor rights should also be guaranteed to the plaintiffs. Since the collective agreement of this case concluded with the labor union of this case set the retirement age of the union members at 55 years, the defendant in the position of employer under the Trade Union Act has the obligation to guarantee the contractual relationship with the plaintiffs until the plaintiffs reach 55 years of age. However, the defendant failed to perform his/her duties under the collective agreement of this case by preventing the plaintiffs from going to the golf course of this case on the ground that the plaintiffs reached 42 years of age. Accordingly, the defendant suffered considerable damage to the capital volume income that the plaintiffs can obtain if they continue to work as game assistants, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the amount of preliminary claim 2) of the damages due to non-performance of obligation.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) did not conclude a labor contract with the Plaintiffs. The Defendant concluded an entrustment contract with the JCC self-governing body and the separate self-governing body to entrust the business of supply and demand of Gyeonggi-do and the business affairs incidental thereto. The business assistants acquired the right to operate within the instant golf course exclusively in accordance with the entrustment contract concluded by the self-governing body and the Defendant, and carry out the business affairs in accordance with the regulations set by the self-governing body. Therefore, since the Defendant and the Gyeonggi assistant are not recognized as a substantial subordinate relationship between the Defendant and the business assistant, the business assistant cannot be deemed as an employee under the Labor Standards Act in relation to the Defendant

2) Even if the status of workers under the Trade Union Act is recognized to the Plaintiffs, the retirement age under the instant collective agreement is a concept premised on being an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and there was no other agreement between the Defendant and the instant trade union to set the retirement age for business assistants at 55. Therefore, the retirement age provision under the instant collective agreement premised on employment relations cannot be applied to the Plaintiffs.

3. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. Whether the plaintiffs constitute workers under the Labor Standards Act

1) Criteria for determination

The determination of whether workers are workers under the Labor Standards Act ought to be based on whether they were provided with labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of earning wages. Here, whether the employer is subject to the rules of employment or the rules of service, etc., whether the employer is subject to detention, and whether the employer is able to independently engage in business on its own account, such as the installation of equipment, raw materials, work tools, etc., and the occurrence of losses through the provision of labor by a third party, and whether the employer has a superior nature of remuneration (or cost) and whether the fixed wage was determined by the Plaintiff 2’s employer from around 60 and the fixed wage was collected from the Plaintiff 1, and whether the Plaintiff 2’s new employees were entitled to new employment regulations such as labor relations and the number of assistants employed by the Plaintiff 1, and whether the new employees were entitled to new employment regulations such as the number of assistants employed by the Plaintiff 1, and whether the new employment regulations and the number of assistants employed by the Plaintiff 2, supra, should be determined by the Supreme Court.

16. From September 15, 1992, Plaintiff E worked as sports assistant in the instant golf course from September 15, 1992, Plaintiff F from October 1, 1997, Plaintiff G from September 15, 2001, Plaintiff H from April 17, 2003, and Plaintiff 1 from December 10, 199 to December 10, 199.

B) According to the actual conditions of the business and the process of performing its duties, the main business of the sports assistants of the instant golf course (1) is providing services to the golf course users, i.e., game auxiliary business (c., golf bags: moving the golf course users to the golf course by guiding the golf course users after leaving the golf course, leaving golf products out of the golf course, leaving the forest, or recording scisfing the golf course in the soil, etc.; ii) encouraging the defendant to use the golf course at the time of conducting the sports-related activities, such as maintaining and repairing the golf course’s string, street, and golf equipment, and preventing the progress of the sports-related activities (such as guiding the KPGA sports rules and route; ii) promoting prompt operation of the golf course and preventing the progress of the sports-related activities (the progress of the sports-related activities by team).

(3) The game assistants of the instant golf course shall conduct a business trip consecutively according to the prescribed sequence, and if one of the game assistants fails to observe the sequences, the game assistants in the following sequence automatically replace the business. The Defendant did not have any separate time for the departure and retirement of all the game assistants, and the game assistants shall work at the instant golf course for 30 minutes to 1 hour before the opening of the game according to their own order on the day on which they are on their own business trip, and shall repair the game assistant and retire after cleaning the entire 3 hours. (4) After the completion of the game assistant’s business, the Defendant’s game progress team shall set up a reservation list on the pre-contract status on the day before the game is on which they are on business trip, and then set up a specific waiting assistant by stating the number of the pre-contract teams, first waiting time, etc. as text messages to each self-governing assistant, so that the game assistant’s waiting assistant will be identified on the following day.

(5) The game assistants of the instant golf course cannot freely change the business trip sequence, and if they do not make a business trip in the business trip sequence, they shall be handled as unauthorized principals, but they may exceptionally change the business trip sequence through the procedure approved by the self-governing president. (6) The game assistants of the instant golf course are instructed by the employees of the Defendant-affiliated Team to maintain the distance between the phone or text message from the Defendant-affiliated team during the game run, and the time at the time, from the front team in the instant golf course, within six minutes. The employees of the Defendant-affiliated project team sent the official questions to each self-governing circuit about the game assistants' business flight, and notified each of them, and require each self-governing council to take appropriate measures against the relevant business assistant and to notify him of the results thereof. Meanwhile, the Defendant notified that the separate self-governing assistant was not directly assigned to the business assistant under its jurisdiction as prescribed by the instant regulations.

(7) On the instant golf course, two sports assistants are assigned only once a day to the day, and they are present from 30 minutes to 1 hour before the beginning of the first sports team, and are in charge of transporting the rooms of visitors to the golf course, and cleaning the waiting room of the sports assistant room. If the day on which the day is scheduled to take a trip by the sequence of the sports assistant, the day on which they wish to take an additional trip within one month is given, but no remuneration for the business itself is paid.

(8) Before the introduction of the self-governing body system, the Defendant’s employees, had regularly enacted the code on the game assistants. After the introduction of the self-governing body system, the head of the JCC self-governing body regularly implemented the code on the game assistants belonging to the JCC self-governing body. From regular points, uniform uniform management, DNA repair, compliance with the rule on the activities assisting users, management of the paid goods, cleanliness of air room, compliance with the running hours, etc., and the direction on the management of users is also also imposed. In addition, education and business instructions through the above regular point above are given to the sports assistant room’s bulletin board, etc., in addition to the above regular point, the regular designation and change of the hours of occupation, the designation of the first waitinger, the first list, the number of times of duties, the pertinent guidelines, the hours of education, and sanctions against the sports assistant who did not observe the sports assistant, etc. are delivered to the GCC self-governing body or publicly announced separately.

C) On the other hand, sports assistants of the instant golf course are allowed to receive from the golf course users a prescribed amount of glddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd.

D) Whether the rules of employment are applied with respect to the neglect of duty

The GCC Self-Governing Council and the Gyeonggi Assistants belonging to the Separate Self-Governing Council are not subject to the rules of employment or personnel regulations set by the Defendant for the general employees, but subject to the instant rules.

In certain cases, each of the above self-government councils shall be subject to sanctions, and each of the above self-government councils shall keep the status of absence from office without permission, dismissal, etc., and shall impose duties for one to seven days in case of absence from office without permission, dismissal, or business assistant's violation of the rules of this case.

E) Gyeonggi assistants in this case’s golf course’s use relation such as working tools, etc. provide sports support services by driving a dong or capt owned by the Defendant, and are supplied with and used by the Defendant such as Gyeonggi assistant ninishes or soil insertions, green repair pins, garbage bags, and exhausters. In addition, the Defendant provided sports assistants with various equipment, such as waiting rooms, showers, smoking rooms, air conditioners, water purifiers, water purifiers, things boxes, etc.

F) Whether to withhold earned income tax on the instant golf course does not pay the labor income tax, and the Defendant also did not withhold the labor income tax on the capital gains that Gyeonggi assistants receive from the golf course users, and did not have business assistants join the National Pension, Employment Insurance, and workplace health insurance as the insured.

[Ground for Recognition] A’s proof 6-1 through 6, Gap’s evidence 7, 8, 9, Gap’s evidence 12-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 14, 15, Gap’s evidence 17-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 18-1 through 18, Gap’s evidence 19, Gap’s evidence 50, 52, 53, Gap’s evidence 54-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 56, 58, 60, 61, 62 and 71, Gap’s evidence 72-1 through 5, Gap’s evidence 73, Gap’s evidence 74-1, 2, 75, Gap’s evidence 1 through 7, Gap’s evidence 81-25, Gap’s evidence 1 through 25, Gap’s evidence 3-2, Gap’s evidence 5-1 through 25, Eul’s evidence 25-1, and evidence 3-25-1 through 3

(1) Whether the JCC self-government council and separate self-government council are independent or not, as seen earlier, the fact that the game assistants of the instant golf course belong to the JCC self-government council or the separate self-government council.

However, the Defendant demanded that the self-governing council consisting of the sports assistants through the Doner Stick Stick ○○○, which can serve as a means of recruitment, selection, education, business instruction, etc. of gold match assistants, and on July 1, 2004, the Doner Stick ○○ was registered as the trade name called “JCC self-governing council” with the Defendant Company and jointly with the vice PCC PCC ○○○○. < Amended by Act No. 2004, Jul. 1, 2004>

7. 5. After convening a sports assistant, the Minister of Health and Welfare requested the Gyeonggi assistant to sign on the official column next to the list stating the business assistant's sequence and name while distributing printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed printed materials, and he knew that he entered into a contract with the Defendant on July 1, 2004. If a considerable number of sports assistant members refused to sign, Park ○ would not put his signature out (bag) if he did not put his signature on the list, and the majority of the sports assistant was treated as joining the JCC Autonomous Council by signing on the above list, and was subject to a measure not to assign a white paper to the sports assistant.

the 204. The 2004. The 2004. The 2004. The 2004. The 2004.

7.1. The purport that a separate self-governing council shall be organized in the previous status and shall grant business auxiliarys.

In accordance with the labor-management agreement, it is difficult to view that the above autonomous council constitutes a pure autonomous organization organized by the sports assistants of the golf course of this case in light of the above fact that the separate autonomous council was organized before July 1, 2004 as well as the fact that the defendant appointed a senior ○○, a deputy council member among the separate autonomous council members on September 7, 2005 as a representative of the autonomous council and a deputy council member, and the circumstances leading up to the establishment of the separate autonomous council and the circumstances leading up to the above establishment of the above autonomous council. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the above autonomous council constitutes a pure autonomous organization organized by the sports assistants of the golf course of this case. Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the fact that the defendant concluded an entrustment contract with the

(2) The fact that, at the time of the appointment of sports assistants to the instant golf course as sports assistants, the Defendant did not explicitly conclude a labor contract or other labor supply contract with the employer, as seen earlier, whether the instant golf course concluded a labor contract or other labor supply contract.

However, in full view of the fact that sports assistants are selected as sports assistants and are assigned to work, the entire process is examined: ① the recruitment of sports assistants according to the defendant’s needs and human resources management plans; ② the golf course users are unilaterally assigned by the defendant; ② the sports assistants cannot choose sports assistants; ③ they do not explicitly conclude any other contracts, such as service contracts or delegation contracts; ④ the sports assistants in the instant golf course are ordinarily assigned to work in the instant golf course, and the training period for practical training for the Defendant’s general new employees is similar to the training period for the instant regular new employees. In full view of the fact that the sports assistants in the instant golf course are ordinarily assigned to work in the instant golf course, and the training period for practical training for the instant new employees is similar to that for the Defendant’s general employees, the sports assistants in the instant golf course can be deemed to have been engaged in work with the appearance of the same type as concluding a labor contract even if they do not explicitly conclude a labor contract with the Defendant. (3) The Defendant set the business contents and is obliged to

The athletic assistants of the instant golf course perform the business of assisting the golf course users as prescribed by the practice, the Defendant’s educational content, and the instant self-governing rules, as well as the business of assisting the golf course users, such as reporting the progress of the golf course to the employees of the sports progress team, etc. belonging to the Defendant, and acquiring golf course users (the Defendant orders a game assistant to require the use of the OBT if he demanded to do so so so so so so from the beginning of the golf course so that they do not go through one-way, and he is obliged to use the golf course if he was negligent). In light of the above circumstances, the sports assistant is performing the business of assisting the golf course users as well as the business of the golf course users, such as the smooth progress of the golf course and the management of the golf course by the Defendant.

In addition, as seen earlier, sports assistants are given instructions related to overall sports support affairs, such as setting up and educating and educating sports assistants, warning unfriendly speech and behavior, maintaining the interval with the front team, repairing DNAs, and safe operation of electric trains, and employees belonging to the Defendant give specific directions to maintain the distance with the front team within six minutes through telephone or text message, or direct instructions at the front team during the match. Separate from the JCC self-government council, acts that interfere with the operation of the sports assistant's self-government rules and the rapid progress of the games (e.g., acts of unleashing, leaving the front team to continue without using OBT, and failing to receive the front team). According to the above instructions, employees of the Defendant’s sports progress team may demand the front team to maintain the distance with the front team within six minutes, and notify the front team employees of the fact that the operation of the sports without the front team will not be carried out within six hours, and the employees of the Defendant’s order to improve the operation without the front team within six hours.

In light of the above circumstances, the game assistant did not directly direct and supervise all the matters from the defendant in the course of performing his/her duties, but this seems to be merely attributable to the characteristics of the business of the game assistant moving with the golf club users. Rather, the defendant, among the business of the game assistant, recommended the golf club users, which is the most important part from the defendant's point of view, so that the game assistant can continue the game while maintaining the match with the former team for 6 minutes, is controlled through specific instructions in the course of performing his/her duties, and other duties are also directed and supervised through regular sanctions such as punishment, education, party image, notice of bulletin board or public announcement, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant has directed and supervised the process of performing his/her duties to a considerable extent.

(4) The Defendant’s designation of working hours and working place, and the sports assistants of the instant golf course are detained by the Plaintiffs, and the sports assistants of the instant golf course are not subject to restrictions on the designated departure and commuting, etc., but the sports beginning time and the sports course of the visitors assigned to the game assistants are set by the Defendant’s business trip sequence ( despite the fact that the sport progress hours are somewhat variable depending on the game progress rate, they are running the instant golf course one time, and there is no big difference as they are running the games), and the sports assistant cannot arbitrarily change the business trip sequence, and if refusing the business trip, it is reasonable to view that the business assistant is subject to sanctions by the Defendant and detained by the Defendant. (5) Whether the business assistant is capable of running his/her business on his/her own account independently from the Defendant.

(4) As seen earlier, the Defendant cannot be deemed to own the tools or equipment necessary for the instant golf course to use the golf course in its own way because the Defendant’s 0-year business assistant by providing the 0-year business assistant with earth and tools and waiting rooms, shower rooms, smoking rooms, air conditioners, water purifiers, and so on. Moreover, the sports assistant of the instant golf course cannot be deemed to own any tools or equipment necessary for performing his/her business, without any justifiable reasons, because the 0-year business assistant is not allowed to use the golf course by using the 0-year business assistant, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s 90-year business assistant’s own business assistant is not allowed to use the golf course by using the 0-year business assistant, and that the Defendant’s 0-year business assistant’s own business assistant who receives remuneration from the Defendant’s business assistant through his/her business performance is not allowed to use the golf course, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s 90-year business assistant who directly received remuneration from the Defendant’s business assistant by using the golf course.

In full view of the fact that it appears that the sports assistant can arbitrarily determine the amount less than 190,000 won from the golf course users, and that if the sports assistant receives the amount less than 190,000 won from the golf course users, each of the self-governing councils contact the frans and received the Defendant’s employees, etc. instead of the insufficient amount from the users, the sports assistant of the golf course in this case is somewhat different from the typical wage directly received from the Defendant, but can be deemed to have been given the Defendant an opportunity to receive the find equivalent to the wage in return for the provision of labor.

The sports assistant of the instant golf course does not receive a fixed wage, such as the basic wage or fixed wage, and the profits vary depending on the increase or decrease of the golf course users. However, the existence of the basic wage or fixed wage, etc. is a matter that the Defendant can unilaterally determine by taking advantage of his economic and social superior position, and thus, the lack of the nature of workers should not be readily denied. It is only possible to consider the existence of the continuity and exclusiveness of the relationship with the provision of labor and the degree thereof in recognition of the status of workers.

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the facts acknowledged earlier, i.e., (i) sports assistants of the instant golf course are ordinarily going to a business trip for at least 20 days in one month; (ii) the number of working days, such as a business trip for at least 15 days in one month during a non-regular period; and (iii) the business trip is made in accordance with the business trip order determined by the Defendant; and (iv) the number of business trips cannot be predicted at any time due to the increase or decrease of users or climate change in the instant golf course; and thus, it is reasonable to view that the instant golf course business assistants are exclusively engaged in the business of providing sports assistance to the Defendant, and that the continuity of work is recognized.

(8) Whether the rules of employment, personnel regulations, etc. are applicable (A) sports assistants of the instant golf course are not subject to the Defendant’s rules of employment, personnel regulations, etc. in addition to the instant rules of autonomy.

However, according to the above, on September 22, 2002, the defendant appointed an internal rule that provides sanctions for leave, retirement age, unauthorized landing, violation of the rules of employment, etc. on October 1, 2002, the defendant appointed an internal rule as a carman and appointed an internal rule on March 1, 2004 as a carman and appointed an internal rule on April 1, 2004 by establishing five articles under the management of the same. Since the defendant did not appear to have agreed on January 16, 2004 for the enactment of the rules of employment as a whole, it is reasonable to deem that the above rules of employment was not enacted.

(B) As to this, the Defendant concluded a contract on business with the JCC Autonomous Council and the separate autonomous council, and the business assistant was admitted to each autonomous council and complied with the instant self-governing rules. However, as seen earlier, the instant self-governing rules are appointed as a master, a vice-master, etc.

Considering the fact that the instant self-governing body and the instant self-governing body are not purely self-governing body organized by the sports assistants of the instant golf club, and the fact that the instant self-governing body and the Defendant entered into a separate contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant does not accept this part of the Defendant’s assertion. (C) Even if the instant self-governing body are not the rules of employment established by the Defendant, the application of the rules of employment or personnel regulations does not act as an important symbol for the recognition of workers since the Defendant, the employer, can decide whether to apply the rules of employment or the method of application by taking advantage of the economic and social superior status. (9) Whether to pay wage and salary income tax and whether the instant golf club assistant is recognized as workers under the statutes on the social security system, and whether the Plaintiff did not withhold income tax or withhold income tax, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. (9) Even if the instant self-governing body are not the rules of employment established by the Defendant, it does not unilaterally determine it as an employer.

(10)The extent of importance of the business in question of the supplied labor.

As seen earlier, in order to receive a certain number of golf teams every day and to enable the pre-contracted users to complete the games on the same day, the Defendant shall encourage Gyeonggi assistants to maintain the interval of time with the front team within six minutes through f minutes through frout education, know-how and public announcement, etc., and urge the progress of the games to reduce the interval between the front team at any time during the Do, and strictly manage sanctions such as warning and per hour, etc. according to the frequency of the games delay.

As such, the Defendant’s active efforts to achieve the rate of the progress of the games can be achieved to maximize the users of all golf teams who are scheduled on the same day, and to maximize the profit therefrom, and to minimize the dissatisfactions of the users of golf clubs due to the time of the games and the delay of the games. Meanwhile, the game assistance services for the users of golf clubs conducted by Gyeonggi assistants may be deemed to be services for the users of golf clubs. However, the game assistance services for the users of golf clubs may be deemed to be services for the users of the golf clubs. However, the game assistance services such as the preparation of customer card management, OB public search, etc., the demand for learning to the early visitors, the demand for learning to the early visitors, repair of the golf clubs facilities and equipment, such as dift and its repair, miscellaneous removal, and miter, etc., are considered to be essential services for the Defendant to achieve six minutes of the progress of the games, and eventually, the Defendant’s operation of the golf clubs in this case’s operation of the golf club in this case’s operation of the golf club in this case, rather than its operation.

B. According to Articles 5 and 11 of the Trade Union Act, an employee may freely organize a trade union or join it. Specifically, the scope of union members shall be determined in accordance with the trade union’s regulations. An employee is qualified for union members by freely joining the trade union in accordance with the trade union’s regulations, and a collective agreement concluded between an employer and a trade union shall be applied to all union members who have joined the trade union as the parties to the agreement unless there are special circumstances such as the provision of a special agreement that only a certain scope of workers shall be applied by a special agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Hun-Ga12, Dec. 2, 2003).

26. On the other hand, according to Article 33 of the Trade Union Act, the part of the rules of employment that violates the standards for working conditions and other workers' treatment provided for in the collective agreement is null and void, and the invalidated part is subject to the criteria provided for in the collective agreement.

2) On the other hand, this case’s return to the Defendant and this case’s labor was provided by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant in a subordinate relationship, and thus, it constitutes workers under the Labor Standards Act. Article 44(1) and (2) of the instant collective agreement concluded between the Defendant and the instant trade union provides that “the retirement age of employees shall be the last day of the month to which the date on which they reach 55 years of age belongs on their resident registration,” and “the retirement age of members shall also be equal.” Article 44(1) and (2) of the instant collective agreement provides that “the scope of membership’s qualification shall be governed by the union regulations,” and Article 7 of the collective agreement of the union provides that the scope of membership’s qualification shall also be included in the scope of membership, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are members of the instant trade union under the Labor Standards Act. On the other hand, the Rules of Employment set the retirement age of business assistant to the Plaintiffs at 42 years of age, but this is null and void as to the Plaintiffs’ retirement age prescribed in the instant collective agreement.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of excluding the Defendant from the instant work to the Plaintiffs by applying the retirement age of the instant self-governing agreement that is null and void in violation of the instant collective agreement is null and void as a substantial unfair dismissal.

C. Determination on the claim for wages

1) When an employer’s unfair dismissal disposition is null and void or cancelled, the status as an employee to be damaged has been continued, and the employee’s failure to provide labor between them is attributable to the employer, and thus an employee may claim the payment of all wages that can be received in cases where the employee continued to provide labor under Article 538(1) of the Civil Act. Here, the wage for which the employee may claim payment refers to the wage prescribed in Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act. As such, if the employee’s payment of wages is all the money paid in compensation for his/her work, including all the money paid continuously and periodically to the employee, and if the employer is obligated to pay in accordance with collective agreement, employment rules, wage rules, labor contract, labor contract, etc. as to the payment thereof, regardless of its name, it shall not be limited to ordinary wages (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da20034, Feb. 9, 2012).

2) As seen earlier, insofar as a disposition of exclusion from the service of this case is deemed null and void as it constitutes an unfair dismissal, the Plaintiffs may claim for the payment of wages that the Defendant would have received in the event that the Defendant continued to work in accordance with Article 538(1) of the Civil Act. Meanwhile, in full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 92-2, No. 99-1 through 9, and No. 34, the number of the Plaintiffs’ business trips during the 12-month period prior to the disposition of exclusion from the service of this case is the same as the following table No. 1, and the facts that the Defendant applied at the time of the disposition of exclusion from the service of this case are 90,000.

The monthly average wage of the plaintiffs at the time of the disposition of this case calculated on the basis of the above facts is equal to the monthly average wage of 0.0 billion won, and the defendant does not dispute the above calculation method and calculation result (the 12-month period before the retirement of plaintiffs C is from November 2007 to October 2008, and the average monthly number of business trips is 238 times during that period (see Evidence 9-2, 900 won) is 1,785,00 won, and the number of business trips is 0.0 days before the dismissal of plaintiffs C is calculated on May 31, 2012 and the monthly average amount of 1,000 won from 0.0 billion won to 2,000 won, which is calculated on the basis of the monthly average of 1,515,000 won, which is calculated on the basis of the 20-month average monthly average of 1,000 won to 2,000 won.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' primary claims are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-py-type Kim

Judges Kim Gung-sik

The monthly average capital of the plaintiffs calculated by multiplying 12 months by the amount of 12 months is the monthly average monthly income of the plaintiffs.

2) The plaintiffs’ monthly average capital gains calculated, as stated in the primary purport of the claim, are the monthly average income of the plaintiffs.

3) divot: The place where the traw, traw or trawed in golf bonds are set up by golf bonds.

4) If a sports assistant is not assigned, a golf club user must carry on a golf game and directly carry on the same day.

In the same case, the defendant seems to be unable to achieve the operating hours at intervals of six minutes.

5) The plaintiffs were capitald on the day of the business trip, but in light of the plaintiffs' claims, the total amount of capitald on the day of the business trip.

Since a temporary payment is sought, the payment date shall be deemed the last day of each month.