logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.26 2017나1797
정산금 등
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following determination as to the assertion added by the Defendants as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendants were regular employees who are not franchises, and only received payment according to labor contract instead of pre-payment of piece rates from the Plaintiffs. 2) The Plaintiffs submitted forged evidence as if they did not complete the course of study; 3) calculated the settlement amount of settlement by unrecovering the customer’s settlement amount; 5) submitted in the membership registration department the evidence that the Defendants did not have completed the course of study; and 6) submitted a written contract that is impossible to confirm because the receipt was not attached.

Therefore, the settlement amount claimed by the plaintiffs was excessively excessive.

3) The Plaintiffs violated the Labor Standards Act by delaying the payment of benefits or forcing them to provide additional services. (B) Determination 1) However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendants were workers employed by the Plaintiffs who are not franchises.

(2) The Defendants’ performance-based bonus payment duty under the labor contract and performance-based contract, based on the premise that the Defendants were the employees employed by the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, according to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 20 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendants received performance-based payment from the Plaintiffs, after receiving the amount equivalent to 43% or 47% of the sales generated from the classes held by the Defendants from January 2014 to January 2015.

arrow