logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.09.23 2015가단1852
노임
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. On August 3, 2013, the Defendant subcontracted to the K Eex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) the Gangwon-gun C and D D Corporation (hereinafter “instant Corporation”).

B. The Plaintiff is running the business of supplying human resources with the trade name “F”. At the request of the Nonparty Company, the Plaintiff supplied human resources to the construction site of this case from June 2013 to September of the same year, and did not receive KRW 27,800,000 out of the wage for the above period from the Nonparty Company.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As the Plaintiff promised to pay the unpaid wage to the Plaintiff on October 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid wage of KRW 27,800,000 to the Plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant promised to pay the unpaid wage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, as an immediate upper-tier contractor responsible for the cause under Article 44(1) of the Labor Standards Act, is jointly and severally liable for payment of the unpaid wage of KRW 27,80,000 to the Plaintiff.

However, Article 44(1) of the Labor Standards Act applies to an employee. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff appears to have concluded a human resources supply contract with the non-party company, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be recognized as an employee of the non-party company.

Therefore, the above argument that the plaintiff is an employee of the non-party company is without reason to examine the existence of the defendant's reason for negligence.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow