logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.19 2017나6907
임금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant employs 18 full-time workers, and is a company that operates construction and interior work business.

B. The Plaintiff, as employed by the Defendant, provided labor to the Defendant via an external crowdfunding from April 10, 2012 to June 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s continued labor in a subordinate relationship with the Defendant for the purpose of the Plaintiff’s wage constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

However, the Plaintiff did not receive the total of KRW 29,385,876,874 in the amount of weekly paid leave allowances, KRW 7,136,464 in the above period of work, KRW 7,905,00 in weekly paid leave allowances, KRW 2,996,584 in annual paid leave allowances, and KRW 11,347,826 in annual paid leave allowances, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay unpaid allowances and retirement allowances to the Plaintiff.

Preliminaryly, even if the Plaintiff is deemed to have entered into a comprehensive wage contract with the Defendant, the annual allowance is not included in the scope of the above comprehensive wage, and the Defendant is obliged to pay at least KRW 2,96,584 for unused annual allowance.

B. The defendant is merely a worker employed in a daily employment contract, and the plaintiff is not a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore the plaintiff is not a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and there is no obligation to pay the plaintiff allowances or retirement allowances.

Even if the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s employee, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive wage contract with the Defendant to pay the statutory allowances in both 145,000 won per day, and thus, there is no obligation to separately pay the statutory allowances to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Even if the Plaintiff is a daily worker in the form of whether he/she is a worker, if the relationship of daily employment continues without suspending it, it shall be deemed a regular worker.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66995, 67004, April 28, 2006). The above facts of recognition and evidence Nos. 5, 6-1, 2, and 6-1.

arrow