근로기준법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was as part of an on-site interview on February 7, 2014, and the Defendant was not obligated to deliver or pay wages to F in writing specifying the working conditions to F at the time of February 7, 2014. The Defendant explicitly withdrawn the argument that “the Defendant is an employee of E Co., Ltd., and is not an employer,” and that “the Defendant is an employee of E Co., Ltd., and is not an employer.”
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that “F, at the investigative agency and court of the lower court, had an interview with the Defendant on February 6, 2014, and, at the same time, had an interview with the Defendant on February 6, 2014, to work in a high-sea office until February 7, 2014.”
On February 7, 2014, at around 09:00, the Defendant worked at around around 09:0, and the Defendant stated that “I am at the site where the camping head is located, and I am at least once I am at the same time.”
With the employees G, the vehicle was driven and arrived at the Hongcheon Camping site around 10:30 while driving the vehicle, and it was done to move goods at that place.
Since then 15:30, around 15:30 moved to the camping site and opened the site, 18:00, and it was consistently and specifically made a statement to the Goyang office at around 18:00, and there is no reasonable circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement, and ② G also performed the work in the court of the court of the court below, including “F on February 7, 2014,” and “F on February 7, 2014, the head of the camping site in Chuncheoncheon.”
Defendant introduced the preceding business F as “the same kind of friendship” on the previous business F.
Before 4-5 days from F, entry into E, and there is no document stating the matters concerning the labor contract or the working conditions, which conforms to F’s statement.