(영문) 대법원 2017.12.22.선고 2015다32905 판결

Of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiffs' appeals Nos. 1 through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 61, 69 through 73, and 77 through 84 are dismissed.

The plaintiffs' appeals and defendant's appeals listed in the annexed Table 1 Nos. 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, 85 through 87 are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

Reasons

1. The judgment of the court below as to the plaintiffs' appeal Nos. 1 through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 61, 69 through 73, and 77 through 84 in the attached Table 1 of the plaintiff's list among the judgment below

An appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment unfavorable to an appellant in his/her own favor. Whether a judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant should, in principle, be determined on the basis of the text of the judgment. Thus, if there is no complaint as to the cited part of the claim in the text of the judgment, even if there is a complaint as to the reasoning of the judgment, there is no benefit of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Meu251, 2268, Jul. 9, 2004).

According to the records, the court below accepted all the claim of this case seeking confirmation that the above plaintiffs are the workers' status, and the above plaintiffs did not have any complaint with regard to the order of the court below, but there is error in the part where the above plaintiffs judged that the implied labor contract relationship with the defendant cannot be seen as constituted between the defendant and the defendant. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' appeal is unlawful as it does not have any interest in appeal.

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, 85 through 87

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the circumstances as stated in its holding, and held that the existence of the Defendant’s collaborative company cannot be deemed to be a formal and nominal one to the extent that it is deemed that it lost its identity or independence as a business owner. Thus, the court below rejected the primary claim seeking confirmation of the existence of an implied labor contract relationship between the above Plaintiffs and the Defendant on the premise that an implied labor contract relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was established.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on implied labor contract relations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

In light of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the circumstances as stated in its holding, and found that the defendant was directly and indirectly directed and ordered workers belonging to the defendant's partner company, and workers belonging to the defendant's partner company were practically incorporated into the defendant's business, and it is difficult to view that the defendant's partner company exercised the right of decision entirely without any influence on the selection of workers who will put into work or the number of workers, work, recess hours, and work attitude inspection, etc., and it is difficult to recognize that the work assigned to the defendant's partner company is for the completion of its own work, and it is difficult to see that the defendant's partner company has an independent business organization or facility necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were employed by the defendant's partner company and dispatched to the defendant's work site and is directly directed and supervised by the defendant.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding considerable command and order, actual incorporation into business, exercise of independent business placement rights, independence in business operations, and direct psychological principle, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the reasoning, inconsistent reasoning, omission of judgment, etc., contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the plaintiffs' appeals listed in the Nos. 1 through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 61, 69 through 73, 77 through 84 are dismissed. The remaining plaintiffs' appeals and the defendant's appeals are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.