logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.29 2018가단82362
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

In fact, the defendant is a corporation that operates passenger transport business and chartered bus rental business, and the plaintiff was a person who actually owns and operates D Lone Star 25 passenger buses (hereinafter "the bus of this case").

Around December 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) between the Defendant and the Defendant; (b) externally, the Defendant, a passenger transport business entity, purchased the instant bus and registered its ownership in the name of the Defendant; (c) the Plaintiff, as the actual owner of the instant bus, bears the purchase price; and (d) the Plaintiff bears expenses for the operation of the instant bus, such as land entry fees, vehicle installments, oil expenses, and four premium; and (d) the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff each month to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by deducting the aforementioned expenses from the total sales revenue from the instant bus operation (hereinafter “instant contract”).

Under the instant contract, the Defendant purchased the instant bus in its name and completed the transfer of ownership on January 3, 2014.

Afterward, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by deducting the land entry fee, vehicle installment, oil cost, vehicle insurance premium, repair cost, parking lot cost, passenger transport business association cost, and DTG communication cost for recording vehicle operation information from the total sales revenue from the operation of the instant bus each month.

On February 1, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant contract as of December 31, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 9 (including partial number of evidence), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's claim as to the contract of this case at the same time has the nature as an admission contract and an employment contract, and the plaintiff actually works as the defendant's direction and supervision. Thus, the plaintiff is a worker of the defendant.

The basic benefits agreed between the original defendant is.

arrow