근로에 관한 소송
1. The decision of the court of first instance, including the plaintiff B's claim expanded and reduced in this court, is as follows.
1. The underlying facts and the grounds for this court’s explanation are as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Party’s assertion” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following items following the 9th page 20 of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
3) If the Plaintiffs’ retirement allowance claim against the Defendants is recognized, the Defendants shall set off the amount equal to the amount of the Plaintiffs’ retirement allowance claim with the withholding tax equivalent to the earned income tax and the local income tax to be borne by the Plaintiffs as the automatic claim.
A person shall be appointed.
2. Determination
A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of whether the plaintiffs are workers are workers are the same as “3.A. Determination” on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiffs’ employees comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and videos (including serial numbers) of evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 12, 22, 24, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 40, witness V of the first instance trial and witness Z of the first instance trial as well as the overall purport of the testimony and arguments, it is reasonable to view the instant private teaching institute as constituting a single private teaching institute that actually engages in one business, and Defendant J as an independent business owner regardless of the name of each private teaching institute’s business registration.
Therefore, the employer who is obligated to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs is only Defendant J.
(2) Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that each Defendant is liable to pay retirement allowances individually to the Plaintiffs who belong to a private teaching institute registered under their name is not accepted. The Plaintiffs are jointly operated as an economic community by the Defendants.