(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.04.21 2015나9763 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2016.04.21 2015나9763

임금반환청구

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a manufacturer of vessel vessel processing and vessel component parts, and the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) were employed by the Defendant and dispatched to the Defendant’s F site in 2014, and served as the contact under the management of G, a field manager, at the time of being dispatched to the Defendant’s F site, in December 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 No dispute exists, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, etc. are employed by the Defendant and the Defendant H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) even in January 2015.

(2) The Defendant asserts that he worked in the field and sought the payment of the monthly wage for the Defendant from January 2015. The Defendant concluded a subcontract for the quantity contracted by G, a quantity team leader, and H from January 2015 and paid the said amount, and the Plaintiff et al. concluded a labor contract with the said G. Thus, the Defendant asserted that he did not have a duty to pay the Plaintiff et al. for January 2015.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff, etc. is the Defendant’s employee. The fact that the Plaintiff, etc. did not prepare a labor contract between the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendant does not conflict between the parties. However, in light of the following various circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, etc. did not conclude a new labor contract with G in January 2015, but still worked at H as the Defendant’s employee. A) The comparison of the work log in December 2014, submitted with the evidence No. 2-1, 2-2, and 15, and the work log in January 2015, it is almost similar to the work log in December 2014 and January 2015, and the fact that the work log in January 2015, and the work contents performed by the parties can still be seen as having been transferred to the Defendant’s workplace.

B. The defendant is an employee of I and J by the date of the closing of argument in the trial.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.02.18 2018나39363

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.27 2016나3920

-청주지방법원 2016.10.06 2016고정528

-인천지방법원 2017.02.16 2016가합50722

-서울서부지방법원 2018.06.05 2017고정1175