(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.22 2018나85749

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.22 2018나85749

약정금

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. (1) On July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant (education and training) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

According to the instant contract, from July 5, 2018, one month after July 5, 2018, when the Defendant does not work without permission during the education period, the Plaintiff shall pay the education cost of KRW 200,000 per day to the Plaintiff.

(2) Since the Defendant received education from the Plaintiff from July 5, 2018 to September 9, 2018, and went away from the place of education, the Defendant is obligated to refund the education cost of KRW 200,000 per day to the Plaintiff for five days.

B. The defendant reported and supported the employment announcement posted on the job-seeking site by the plaintiff, and worked for five days as an employee, and the contract claiming the return of educational expenses, not only for the payment of wages to the defendant who worked for the worker, is invalid against the mandatory provisions or against the good faith principle.

2. Determination

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, whether the instant contract is a service contract or a labor contract, it is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant to provide certain labor to the Plaintiff during the service period on July 5, 2018. From July 5, 2018 to October 04, 2018, one month is the education period, two months is the training period, and the annual salary contract is entered into after the end of three months. The cost for the service period (excluding the training period) is 60,000 won per day. The education and the service period for the overall service period of the Plaintiff’s executive officer’s instructions pertaining to the company is performed. The work period according to the direction of the Plaintiff’s executive officer’s officer’s instruction is the support for the Plaintiff’s non-performance, operation, driving, building leasing, management, support for the building, facility management, building and operation (e.g., building and facility management, building management, car page, etc.).

The education period is related.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.09 2020나34393

-서울동부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014나6772

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.18 2017가단226715

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.23 2014가합26624

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2014.02.27 2013가합302