해고무효확인등
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the confirmation of the worker status of the plaintiff A shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The defendant, established on November 22, 1985, employs approximately 1,40 workers for tourist hotel business, etc. and operates a tourist hotel business, etc. (hereinafter "the hotel in this case") and a G hotel in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant was merged with the defendant joining the defendant joining the defendant corporation (hereinafter "the intervenor joining the defendant corporation incorporated on December 2, 2005") on January 31, 1994, and operated a building cleaning agency, labor service business, worker dispatch business, etc.
B. From 199 to 199, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Intervenor to contract the business of cleaning the guest rooms of the instant hotel, cleaning the public area, etc. (hereinafter “instant business contract”) on a yearly basis and renewed the contract at the expiration of the period.
C. On August 23, 1999, Plaintiff A entered Nonparty I, a human resources dispatch company, and worked as a studio room room (cab room cleaning center) of the hotel of this case. On September 23, 1999, Plaintiff A changed from the hotel of this case to the intervenor, but was the same as before, until December 31, 2001, Plaintiff B was working as studio room (air room cleaning room cleaning center), and from January 1, 2002, Plaintiff B was employed as the intervenor on May 24, 200, and was working as studs in the hotel of this case.
According to the business contract of this case, while working for the defendant's hotel in charge of cleaning and inspection of guest rooms, cleaning and inspection of public areas, water management, washing, etc., the plaintiffs were notified by the intervenor of the head office as of July 9, 2005, and was notified by the intervenor on July 20, 2005, and was dismissed from the intervenor on July 20, 2005. The defendant excluded the plaintiffs from the placement of work around that time.
【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 23-4, 5, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiffs asserted by the parties are between the Defendant and the Intervenor.