logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.08.22 2018나64113
연차수당 청구의 소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The basic facts are corporations established by the Defendant for the purpose of running the damage adjusting business, etc., and the Plaintiffs distribute the damage adjusting business delegated by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs enter into a contract with the Defendant to receive a certain ratio from each of the commissions paid by the relevant insurance company after performing the contract, and have been in charge of performing the damage adjusting business under the said contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The Plaintiffs constitute a retired person who provided labor after being employed by the Defendant for the purpose of wage and under specific direction and supervision by the Defendant, and is subject to the Labor Standards Act, and the Defendant is obligated to pay annual allowances to the Plaintiffs. 2) Since the Plaintiffs are so-called a so-called so-called so-called “self-debt damage assessment position” under which the Defendant’s name is lent to

Even if the plaintiffs are workers, there was no annual difference in the year in which the plaintiffs did not work more than 80%, and there was an annual difference.

Even if the period during which the plaintiffs can claim the annual allowance has expired, and the annual allowance falls under the wage and must be claimed within three years. Since the plaintiffs did not submit the annual plan for use in accordance with the annual promotion system, which was enforced from 2012 based on Article 61 of the Labor Standards Act, the plaintiffs did not have any obligation to compensate the plaintiffs even if they generated and used the annual rent.

B. Whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act is a contract for employment or a delegation contract, and the substance of a labor provision relationship rather than a contract for employment.

arrow