logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.07.15 2014가단135792
퇴직금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,405,191 as well as 6% per annum from September 16, 201 to June 1, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant (mutual name before the change on August 31, 2009: Daewoo Capital Co., Ltd.) delegated debt collection to a credit information company specializing in debt collection, including credit information companies, and credit information companies specializing in debt collection, including Korea-Japan Credit Information Co., Ltd. and Korea Credit Information Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-Japan Credit Information Co., Ltd.”), in the Defendant’s business on July 1, 2009.

(2) The credit information company of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "credit information company of this case"). The credit information company of this case, July 2009 to December 201, 201, shall be deemed to have been a credit information company of this case. The credit information company of this case shall be deemed to have been a credit information company of this case on December 9, 201 to July 27,

B. The Plaintiff’s business term “period of work” in the attached Table No. 1 refers to the Plaintiff’s business to collect the Defendant’s claim during the period indicated, and the certificate and the business income withholding receipt prepared by the instant credit information company, stating that the Plaintiff received the Defendant’s delegation of debt collection duties from the said credit information company as follows:

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's evidence 9, 15, Eul's evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that since the defendant's debt collection business as the defendant's employee during the period specified in the attached table "period of work" as the defendant's employee, the defendant asserts that the defendant should pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the "retirement Allowance" in the above table as retirement allowance. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was merely delegated the debt collection business from the credit information company of this case and did not work as the defendant'

B. (i) Whether the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s employee is the employee under the Labor Standards Act, or whether the form of the contract is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and its substance is the employee’s business.

arrow