logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.03 2013나2031906
퇴직금 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 1999, the Defendant is a company engaged in credit investigation business, debt collection business, etc. with a credit information business license under the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (hereinafter “Credit Information Act”).

B. The Plaintiffs entered into a business delegation agreement with the Defendant on the first day of each service period indicated in the separate sheet for calculation of retirement allowances (hereinafter “instant business delegation agreement”) and retired at the end of the said service period, while taking charge of collecting claims accepted by the Defendant from creditors during the said service period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the formal title of the instant delegation contract is a delegation contract, the Plaintiffs provided labor to the Defendant in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages, the Defendant is obligated to pay each money stated in the “legal retirement allowance” column in the attached retirement allowance calculation sheet as retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act to the Plaintiffs.

B. The defendant is not an authorized person who entered into a debt collection delegation contract with the defendant and performed his duties, and the defendant is not an employee who provided his labor under the defendant's direction and supervision.

3. Determination

A. (i) Whether the Plaintiffs are workers under the relevant legal principles should be determined based on whether the Plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act, more substantially than the form of a contract, and whether the Plaintiffs provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace. Here, whether a subordinate relationship exists is determined by the employer, and is subject to the rules of employment or labor regulations, etc.

arrow