beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.09.03 2019나40823

퇴직금 청구

Text

1.(a)

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against plaintiffs A, B, and D shall be revoked.

B. The defendant is the plaintiff A, the plaintiff B, and the defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

가. 원고들은 별지 ‘원고들의 근무기간 및 근무장소 표’ 기재와 같이 ‘F’ 미용실(이하 ‘F’라 한다) 홍대본점, 홍대놀이터점, 명동점, 가로수길점을 옮겨 다니며 스텝 또는 헤어디자이너로 근무하였다.

B. The Defendant is operating F Red Polz points and F Polz points.

(c) The person registered as the business operator of the F Red Cross Head Office is H (the Defendant’s wife); and the person registered as the business operator of the F Street Point is J (the Defendant’s leakage) and I.

The “F” shall be omitted when a branch is not more than hereinafter.

【Ground for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 4 through 9, Eul’s evidence No. 4-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

가. 원고들 원고들은 피고에게 고용되어 피고의 지시에 따라 피고가 운영하는 홍대본점, 홍대놀이터점, 명동점, 가로수길점을 옮겨 다니며 스텝 또는 헤어디자이너로 일하다

Since they are retired workers, the defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs.

B. Defendant Hong Pung-dong store and name store were operated by the Defendant, but Hong-dong store were operated by H, and Hong-dong store was operated by I and J as FF franchise store in Dong business. The Defendant merely received fees in return for brand management, personnel management, store management, etc.

스텝은 근로자에 해당하지만 헤어디자이너는 근로자에 해당하지 않는다.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the head office of the red road and the main body of operation of the street roadside A shall be deemed to be the Defendant, taking into account the following facts and circumstances: (a) the Red Road and the main body of operation of the street roadside A, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 9, 25, 36, 42 through 47, Eul evidence No. 19, 20, Eul evidence No. 28-1, Eul evidence No. 28-8, the witness of the first instance trial, K of the first instance trial, and L testimony:

Part of Eul's testimony of No. 6-3 and 4, H's testimony of the first instance court witness, and witness I of the first instance court is difficult to believe, and the remaining evidence submitted by the defendant is the remainder.