beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.13 2017가단5177904

퇴직금 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company engaged in claims collection business (the act of exercising claims collection on behalf of the creditor through asset investigation, demands for repayment, or acceptance of payments from the debtor with respect to the person who has failed to repay the debts by the agreed date on behalf of the creditor) and credit investigation business (the act of investigating credit information at the request of another person and providing the person with such credit information) under Article 2 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a delegation agreement with the Defendant and terminated the delegation agreement with the Defendant on April 1, 2017, when performing claims collection business from September 20, 2003 to July 19, 2006, and performing credit investigation business from July 20, 2006 to March 31, 2017.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an employee of the Defendant, on the grounds that the Plaintiff conducted debt collection and credit investigation by using the collection equipment and expenses provided by the Defendant under the Defendant’s specific direction and supervision at working hours and places designated by the Defendant, and received monthly wages from the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the legal retirement allowance to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In the case of the period of claims collection service, according to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff received KRW 60,000 to KRW 5960,00 per month from the Defendant during the period of claims collection service. In light of the monthly income distribution, the Plaintiff appears to have received only delegation fees based on his/her performance, such as recovery of claims, regardless of the content and time of his/her service, and there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff that the Defendant had given specific instructions and supervision over the content and method, time, place, etc. of claims collection service (the only statement of evidence No. 4 is insufficient to acknowledge such circumstance

(2).