(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.10 2016나4058 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.10 2016나4058

노임

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The construction of this case’s labor contract and implied labor contract relationship (which refers to the construction of a new house of 32 square meters at the Defendant’s domicile) is the so-called owner’s direct construction, and the Defendant, the owner of the building, specifically directed and supervised the construction, and C, upon receiving the Defendant’s order, was carried out in the form of labor contract in which the Plaintiff and other members are mobilized at the construction site and is in charge of the construction. Since C and the Plaintiff provided labor under the Defendant’s direct supervision, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was established implicitly.

B. Even if C’s succession to the status of C, C contracted for the instant construction from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was employed by C.

Even if around June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the remaining construction under the Defendant’s direction even after C left the construction site, which the Defendant succeeded to the construction that C had continued, and used the Plaintiff, and the Defendant succeeded to the status of C’s contractor and employer.

C. The Plaintiff seeking unpaid wages from March 24, 2014 to the same year

7. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wage of KRW 7,150,00 (=52.5 days x 180,000 won per day - 2.3 million won) and the delay damages.

2. Determination

A. First, whether the labor contract and implied labor contract relations are established or not, the instant construction work is directly operated by the Defendant, the owner of the building, and C is not sufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion in light of the following: (a) evidence Nos. 4, 8, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (each of the descriptions, including the serial number, recognized by the Defendant as a whole as follows; (b) it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part; and (c) evidence No. 7 alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

① The Defendant does the instant construction work.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.05.10 2016나4065

-수원지방법원 2018.12.13 2017가단520150

-수원지방법원 2015.07.24 2015가단12464

-대전고등법원 2020.05.27 2019나12563

-의정부지방법원 2019.04.02 2018가단118190