(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.10.21 2020나53750

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 2020.10.21 2020나53750

손해배상 등

Text

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

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

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

Reasons

1. The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justified even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court citing the judgment of the first instance is based on the evidence submitted in this court.

Therefore, the reasons for this court's reasoning are as follows, except where the defendants added the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion that the defendants emphasize or add to this court, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant B’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendant B, but an officer, and thus, Defendant B is not entitled to claim overtime work allowances.

B) Even if the Plaintiff is deemed as the employee of Defendant B, since the comprehensive wage system was established by implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim overtime work allowances against the Defendant B, and even if the comprehensive wage system was not established, the Plaintiff should prove that the Plaintiff provided labor under the labor contract exceeding eight hours a day or forty hours a week in order to receive overtime work allowances, and the first instance court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff was on overtime work only by fact-finding beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, even though it was insufficient to prove such fact-finding.

2. Article 13(2) of the Agreement on Appointment of Officers concluded between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant C ought to be interpreted as a provision on the payment of shares of a mutually beneficial nature, and it should be interpreted as having paid shares that meet all the requirements of the Plaintiff’s contribution and the performance to be created in Defendant C who entered the previous workplace. Since the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of the performance to be created in Defendant C who entered the new job, it cannot be claimed for the payment of shares to Defendant C.

B. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.12.09 2016나105037

-부산고등법원 2017.10.20 2017누20538

-부산고등법원 2017.10.20 2017누20262

-대구지방법원 2015.11.05 2014노2439

-창원지방법원 2015.10.29 2015나5297