임금 등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The grounds for the claim of this case are as shown in the attached Form.
If the legal nature of the instant service agreement is delegated, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to night work allowances pursuant to the provisions of Article 688 of the Civil Act (Mandatary’s Right to Demand reimbursement of expenses, etc.).
The argument is asserted.
However, the Plaintiff’s wages paid to the employees are reflected in the calculation of the service price agreed to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff under the instant service contract. Therefore, even if the amount exceeds the expected amount, the Plaintiff cannot claim payment to the Defendant based on the provisions of the Civil Act.
If the legal nature of the instant service contract is delegated, it is reasonable to view that the service payment constitutes remuneration and that the Plaintiff’s right to claim reimbursement of expenses, at least one of the clients, was excluded in accordance with the remuneration agreement, namely, the service payment agreement.
Therefore, if the amount of wages omitted in the calculation of the original service price, such as night work allowances asserted by the Plaintiff, it would be resolved through the contract price adjustment or other legal principles under the service contract of this case, and the Plaintiff cannot claim the Defendant to pay the amount equivalent to night work allowances under the above Civil Act.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.
The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to night work allowances to the Plaintiff even if the legal nature of the instant service contract is determined as a contract.
One of the arguments is that Article 47 (Contract Workers) of the Labor Standards Act can not be a direct basis for such obligations, and that "The recent court has judged its legal nature as delegation and recognized the claim for return of unjust benefits to the representative meeting of apartment occupants, which is the delegating person," which leads to the above provision of the Labor Standards Act.
The argument that “” is an ambiguous argument is.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.
2.2