배당이의
1. On October 7, 2015, the Daegu District Court's racing support E, and F (Dual) real estate auction cases.
1. Basic facts
A. Voluntary decision on commencement of auction (Seoul District Court racing support E, F (Dupl) was made with respect to H land, etc. owned by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and the said voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was drafted on October 7, 2015 as the distribution schedule in the attached list (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
B. The Plaintiff stated an objection against the dividend amount of the Defendants on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure.
【Ground of recognition】 A without dispute, entry (including additional number) in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A, B, and Korea Labor Welfare Corporation
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as Defendant A and B are workers under the Labor Standards Act, the above Defendants were enrolled in G with the position of the director or vice president of the overseas business division, they do not constitute workers under the Labor Standards Act.
However, regardless of the form of contract, whether a person is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act shall be determined based on whether the person has provided labor to an employer for the purpose of earning wages in substance. Thus, even if an officer such as a director or auditor of the company is a formal and scenic purpose, his status or name is a formal and scenic purpose, and in fact, he is in a relationship of remuneration for the provision of labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director or employer who has a right
If a representative director, etc. is responsible for certain labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director, etc. and has received certain remuneration in return, such officer is a worker under the Labor Standards Act.
In this regard, each statement (including the serial number) in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64681, Sept. 26, 2003) shall be made.