퇴직금 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in this court, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified.
The reasoning for this Court’s entry is as follows, excluding the parts used or added as follows, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. As such, this Court cited the same as a summary under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The phrase “employment” in the first instance judgment No. 9 shall be deleted in part, which was written after dismissal.
No. 10 of the first instance judgment No. 16 of the plaintiffs 16 of the plaintiffs 16 of the plaintiffs 16 of the plaintiffs 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17. The 1) of the plaintiffs excluding the plaintiffs H appear to have no fact-finding that they were employed as regular employees of the defendants excluding the plaintiff H. The defendants' regular employees, including the plaintiff H, cannot be deemed to have forced such conversion. Rather, in light of the testimony of the party witness P of the first instance trial, the defendants seems to have recommended the conversion of the 13th through 20 of the 111 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of the 17 of
4) It seems that the Defendants confirmed or reported the working hours, the attendance status, and the leave schedule of the store managers including the Plaintiffs.
However, it may be viewed as a measure for maintaining sales and promoting sales, and there is an inevitable aspect in relation to the relationship with the department stores, etc. where the plaintiffs work.
It is difficult to view that the Defendants regularly controlled the Plaintiffs by way of specific time of commuting to and from work, designation of leave days, etc.
Furthermore, the Defendants did not comply with the demands.