logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.06.09 2014나6514
임금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who runs a business such as the Buddhist Construction Business, and the defendant is a corporation with the purpose of construction business.

B. The Defendant received a contract from C Co., Ltd. to “C Factory New Construction Corporation” and “D Factory Construction Corporation” respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). C. The foregoing two construction works are collectively referred to.

E, who managed the construction site of this case, employed the Plaintiff and was in charge of the unclaimed construction during the instant construction, and the Plaintiff mobilized eight persons, including himself, under the direction and supervision of E, etc. on September 201, and completed the relevant unclaimed construction.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3, F's testimony by the witness of the court of first instance, testimony by the witness E of the court of first instance, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was employed by the Defendant on August 201, and became in charge of funeral construction during the instant construction. Since the Plaintiff mobilized the Plaintiff’s seal and completed the instant funeral construction, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 17.6 million and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not have entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff, and given a subcontract for the construction works during the instant construction works to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff wages for the said construction works.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff is a person in charge of the work related to the construction work at a specific construction site. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that an employee delegated with the specific type of business or specific matters under Article 15 of the Commercial Act has a partial comprehensive power of attorney. The scope of the ordinary work of the site manager at a construction site is related to the materials and labor management related to the construction work.

arrow