퇴직금청구
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The defendant is a company that is engaged in the purchase, operation, and disposal of non-performing loans held by financial institutions, etc.
Around April 2015, the Defendant entered into a debt collection delegation agreement with C Co., Ltd. (former D Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “C”) under which the Defendant delegated debt collection and credit investigation to the said company.
C On October 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to perform the duties of debt collection (hereinafter “instant contract”), and drafted a delegation contract.
The period during which the Plaintiff performed duties under the instant contract is from October 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to whether the obligation to pay retirement allowances exists
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act who actually provided labor to the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff statutory retirement allowances and damages for delay calculated at the rate of delay damages as stipulated in Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act from the day following the date of retirement of the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s Plaintiff concluded a delegation contract with C, and was dispatched to the Defendant Company under its control, and performed collection business
When the Defendant pays the money to C in accordance with the delegated debt collection contract, C was operated as a system under which C pays the remaining money to the Plaintiff, excluding its fees, as service costs.
The plaintiff is not the defendant's employee, and the defendant is not obligated to pay the retirement allowance to the plaintiff.
B. With respect to whether the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s employee, the Plaintiff’s employer does not have the identity or independence as the employer, who is employed by the Plaintiff’s employer and engaged in a third party’s work at the third party’s workplace.