beta
(영문) 대법원 2017.12.22 2015다32912

근로자지위확인

Text

The judgment below

The plaintiffs' appeals listed in the Nos. 1 through 10 of the attached table of plaintiffs shall be dismissed.

Attached Form

List of Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Of the judgment of the court below, the appeal against the plaintiffs' appeal Nos. 1 through 10 of the plaintiffs' list Nos. 1 to 10 is to seek revocation or alteration of the judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself.

In principle, whether a judgment is disadvantageous to appellant or not shall be determined on the basis of the main text of the judgment. Thus, if there is no complaint about the cited part of the claim in the main text of the judgment, even if there is a complaint for the reason of the judgment, there

(2) According to the records, the court below accepted the claim of this case seeking confirmation of the above plaintiffs' status as an employee of the defendant. It is evident that the above plaintiffs are filing an appeal on the ground that there was no complaint as to the order of the court below and there was an error in the part that determined that the implied labor contract relationship with the defendant cannot be deemed to have been established with the defendant on the ground that there was no error in the decision of the court below.

Therefore, the above plaintiffs' appeal is unlawful as it has no interest in appeal.

2. The lower court determined the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal listed in the separate sheet Nos. 11 through 24 as to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal by taking full account of the adopted evidence, and acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and deemed that the existence of the Defendant’s collaborative company cannot be deemed as a formal purpose, to the extent that it could be deemed that the Defendant’s collaborative company did not have any identity or independence as a business owner, and thus

Therefore, the above plaintiffs and the defendant rejected the primary claim seeking confirmation that the above plaintiffs are in the defendant's worker status on the premise that an implied employment contract relationship exists between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment is logical and empirical, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.