logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.18 2017가합573047
퇴직금
Text

1. The defendant,

A. Attached Nos. 1 through 12, 15, and 22 are the same Table to each of the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in debt collection and credit investigation business with permission from the Financial Services Commission in accordance with the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (hereinafter “Credit Information Act”).

B. The Plaintiffs entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”) around the first day of each service period indicated in the attached retirement allowance calculation table. The Plaintiffs are debt collectors retired from the last day of the service period at the end of the above service period while taking charge of claims management and collection as delegated by the Defendant at X team, Y team, general commercial team, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including all paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiffs entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant formally, they are deemed workers under the Labor Standards Act, since they were subordinate to the Defendant, such as being subject to considerable direction and supervision from the Defendant in performing their duties.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the "request amount" list for calculation of the attached Form 2 retirement allowance with retirement allowance under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiffs are independent business operators who entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant on an equal footing, and are merely engaged in their own business, and they are not workers under the Labor Standards Act who are directed and supervised by the Defendant for the purpose of wages.

Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to pay retirement allowances under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act to the plaintiffs.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiffs are workers under the relevant legal doctrine as to whether the Plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and the workers are businesses or workplaces in substance rather than a contract for employment.

arrow