배당이의
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as the “1. Basic Facts”, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is the president of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Non-Party Co., Ltd.") and is in charge of management. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed the non-party Co.
Therefore, the amount of dividends to the defendant should be deleted from the distribution schedule of this case.
3. Whether a person is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act should be determined depending on whether, regardless of the form of contract, labor is provided to an employer for the purpose of wages. Thus, even if a director of a company is a director, if he/she is in charge of certain labor and receives certain remuneration in return, under the direction and supervision of the president, etc., in addition to handling affairs delegated by the
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da22591 delivered on September 8, 2000). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of oral argument, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was in the status of providing labor to the non-party company in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of oral argument, the Defendant was in the status of providing labor to the non-party company in a subordinate relationship.
① The Defendant prepared an employment contract between the Nonparty Company and received the remainder from the Nonparty Company at source of income tax, health insurance, national pension, employment insurance, etc. from the wage set in a certain amount.
② The non-party company is registered as a company director, which is a single shareholder, and the defendant has no record of being registered as a director.
③ While the Defendant was working in the non-party company, the Defendant was subscribed to employment insurance, and the non-party company is the Defendant as the insured.