logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.01.08 2019나13002
식대비
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

Reasons

Plaintiff

The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff, while operating a restaurant in the vicinity of the construction site of an apartment constructed by the Defendant, provided meals to the employees of C (hereinafter “C”) affiliated with the Defendant’s subcontractor company from March 2017 to January 2018. Since C was unable to pay food for business difficulties from October 2017, the Defendant, who was an employee of the Defendant, made a verbal agreement with the payment of KRW 8,077,00 in total, from October 2017 to January 2018.

In addition, since the defendant actually paid personnel expenses from October 2017 to January 2018 when directing and supervising the employees belonging to C, the defendant is obligated to pay the food of the above employees corresponding to the employees.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total sum of KRW 8,077,00 and the delay damages.

According to each part of the evidence Nos. 1-8 (including the above number), Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the person who provided the meals claimed by the plaintiff is an employee of C, a separate corporation from the defendant, and the plaintiff was settled by C from March 2017 to September 2017, and the part on which the plaintiff provided meals to the employees belonging to the defendant separately is recognized as having been settled by the defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, barring special circumstances where the defendant (representative director or an employee with legitimate power of attorney) agreed to assume the food payment obligation on behalf of C, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff is liable to pay the food payment obligation provided to the employees belonging to C from October 2017 to January 2018.

However, only part of the evidence Nos. 1-8 (including above number) submitted by the Plaintiff is written. D head or E deputy head, an employee of the Defendant, was not paid by C from October 2017 to January 2018.

arrow