할부매매대금 등 청구의 소
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 21,934,682 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from October 12, 2018 to February 20, 2019.
The main lawsuit, counterclaim is also considered.
1. Factual basis, the Plaintiff entered into a cargo transport consignment agreement with C (State) and engaged in the cargo transport business (However, the Plaintiff was employed in the form of a "vehicle" as an employee of a local owner company in appearance, who was employed by C). On November 2014, the Defendant was employed as an employee of the Plaintiff as a "drivingman."
The Plaintiff, registered in the name D at the time, assigned the “E” truck (referring to the “E” wing wing (hereinafter the “instant truck”) to the Defendant and assigned the Defendant to take charge of the trucking transport, i.e., to which C instructs and entrusts.
C In the event of the termination of the Defendant’s cargo transport, the monthly settlement of the freight, namely, the freight charge on December 2, 2014, deposited into the account in the name of D on February 2, 2015, which was two months after the end of the two months, and the Plaintiff, while managing the D account, paid the Defendant the Defendant the monthly salary of KRW 2,50,000,000 per month from the remainder after deducting the Defendant’s expenses paid from the revenue from the transportation revenue to the cost of cost, vehicle repair cost, etc. (paid by credit card in the name of D which the Defendant possessed)
In addition, on March 1, 2015, a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as shown in the attached Form with respect to the instant cargo vehicle.
The above facts are not significantly disputed between the parties.
2. Judgment on the issue
A. The key issue of the instant case is that the Plaintiff sought payment of the vehicle installment, etc. in arrears, which had been made between the principal domicile and the original Defendant on the instant truck, pursuant to the instant sales contract, namely, the instant sales contract and the vehicle installment sales contract.
On the contrary, the defendant asserts as follows.
In other words, the Defendant, who was employed by the Plaintiff on November 1, 2014, was paid 2.5 million won per month during which he had been employed by the Defendant to get the Plaintiff paid the same. On March 1, 2015, the instant sales contract, which is not a labor contract, is not a labor contract, at the Plaintiff’s request.