beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.05.21 2019나41482

보험료등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

Reasons

1. From April 1, 2017, the Defendant operating the Plaintiff and the Defendant operating the “D” due to the merger of “C” into “C” and changed the recipients belonging to “D” into “C”, and the Defendant agreed to work as the Plaintiff’s employee, and drafted a labor contract on March 30, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not continue to provide the plaintiff with the personal information documents of the recipient who was affiliated with D.

In addition, the Defendant, as a social welfare worker and the Plaintiff’s employee, did not perform his/her duty to collect the individual contributions, but did not inform the Plaintiff of his/her personal information so that the Plaintiff may receive the individual contributions.

Accordingly, the plaintiff notified the defendant that he could no longer work together, and the defendant set aside on June 19, 2018, and 12 of the beneficiaries who were affiliated with D were affiliated with "D".

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant expressed this as “original uniforms” and thus, they are obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,187,610, the unpaid principal charges, KRW 1,224,00, and KRW 22,363,922, the sum of KRW 25,75,532, and KRW 225,75,532, which the Defendant borne by the Plaintiff during the Defendant’s work in “C”, and KRW 12,00, which were illegally recovered recipients.

3. The statement in Gap evidence No. 3 is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant did not deliver the personal information documents of beneficiaries who were affiliated with "D" to the plaintiff. Rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff can find the fact that the plaintiff claimed expenses for long-term care benefits of beneficiaries to the National Health Insurance Corporation. In light of the above facts, the defendant seems to deliver

The entry of Gap evidence No. 3 is changed to "C" by a recipient who was affiliated with "D."