Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Attorney Cho Jae-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Future Credit Information Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Kim Yong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

September 2, 2009

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008Gahap17005 Decided April 8, 2009

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiffs 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14 that constitutes the following additional payments order shall be revoked:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 52,815,814 won, 4,581,034 won, 2,130,328 won, 3,269 won to the plaintiff 6 to the plaintiff 3,483,269 won, 4,456,235 won, 607,339 won to the plaintiff 12, 607,339 won, 14 to the plaintiff 2,227,973 won, and each of the above amounts shall be paid 6% per annum from the date following the end of each relevant service period specified in the separate sheet to April 8, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's appeal and the remaining appeals of plaintiffs 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14 and the defendant and the costs of the appeal between the plaintiff 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are all borne by the defendant.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 6% interest per annum from the date following the last day of each corresponding service period stated in the annexed retirement allowance calculation table to the service day of the application for correction of claim and cause of claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff 19 withdrawn the lawsuit at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiff 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14: The defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 2 52,815,814 won, 4,581,034 won to Plaintiff 4, 2,130,328 won, 3,483,269 won to Plaintiff 7, 4,456,235 won to Plaintiff 11, 12, 607,339 won to Plaintiff 14, and 2,27,973 won to Plaintiff 14, and 6% of the annual amount from the day following the end of each service period of the corresponding retirement allowance in the separate sheet for calculation of retirement allowances to the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% of the amount per annum to the day of full payment.

Defendant: The part against Defendant in the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to that part is dismissed, respectively.

1. Basic facts

The defendant is a company engaged in debt collection and credit investigation with permission from authorities in accordance with the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (hereinafter referred to as "credit information business"). The plaintiffs enter into a debt collection service entrustment agreement with the defendant on the first day of each relevant service period in the column for service period indicated in the annexed retirement allowance calculation table, and entered into such agreement with the defendant, and retired at the end of the above service period.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs are workers because they performed the claims assigned by the defendant under the specific direction and supervision of the defendant at working hours and places designated by the defendant, and received wages on a monthly fixed date from the defendant. This constitutes the defendant's workers, which is not attributable to the formal contract name or the defendant's exclusion of the plaintiffs from the subject of the four-party insurance or from the source of withholding business income tax on the above wages. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay a statutory retirement allowance to the plaintiffs.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The Defendant concluded a debt collection entrustment agreement with the Plaintiffs and entrusted the business of collecting claims to the Plaintiffs on that basis, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs dealt with their own discretion and determination. The Plaintiffs were not subject to the Defendant’s rules of employment, and their remuneration was paid solely based on the result of recovery of claims, and there was no basic pay or fixed pay, and the amount was significant difference between the Plaintiffs and each payment period (in the case of December 2, 2008, the highest of the 939 in total, the 16,197,519 in total, the lowest of the 939 in total, the highest of the 939 in total, the 16,197,519 in terms of the nature of the contract or delegated business, and the detention based on the exercise of the employer’s right to command. Considering that the exercise of binding power by the Defendant cannot be deemed to go beyond the scope of the duty control rights of the contractor or delegating, the Plaintiffs did not receive retirement pay from the Plaintiffs, the Defendant should not be deemed to have been paid to the Plaintiffs’ employees.

(2) Even if the plaintiffs are the defendant's employees, it is not possible to calculate the average wage, which is an element for the calculation of retirement pay, as well as when calculating the amount based on the fees for the three-month period prior to the retirement, there is a risk of abuse, such as the failure of the retired worker to notify the details of the completion of the collection business, as the month when the retired worker retires. Therefore, it is improper to calculate

3. Determination

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of subsection (b)(2) of the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.

(2) Calculation of the amount of retirement pay ordered to be paid

Unless the basic average wage for the calculation is significantly higher or less than that of ordinary workers due to special reasons, the amount of retirement allowances for workers shall be calculated by multiplying the total amount of wages received for three months prior to their retirement by the number of years employed for 30 days per day divided by the relevant period in accordance with the principle calculation method under the relevant provisions of the Labor Standards Act. The fact that each of the average wages calculated based on the amount received from the defendant company for three months prior to their retirement is the amount corresponding to the average wage column of the same Table as stated in the amount received in the attached table for three months prior to their retirement, and that each of the above average wages constitutes the amount corresponding to the average wage column of the same Table, as there is no dispute between the parties, and there is no evidence to prove that there is no special reason to deem that each of the above average wages constitutes the amount significantly higher than that of ordinary wages, the amount to be paid by the plaintiffs shall be the corresponding amount in the same Table of statutory retirement allowances calculated by multiplying each of the above average wages to each of the above plaintiffs by the number of years employed.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act for the plaintiff 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 from the date following the end of each corresponding service period stated in the corresponding service period column of the same attached Table with respect to each corresponding amount as stated in the same table of retirement allowances to the plaintiffs, until March 25, 2009, the delivery date of the application for change of the purport of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim of this case, until March 25, 2009, the delivery date of the application for change of the purport of this case, and 1,2,4,6, 7, 11, 12, and 14, which are deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute on the existence and scope of the obligation to pay, and 6% per annum from the date of the first instance judgment

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims of the plaintiffs 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted on the grounds of all the claims, and the claims of the plaintiffs 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed on the grounds of the above recognition. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and the part against the defendant against the defendants 1,2,4,6, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are justified, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the remainder of the plaintiffs 2,14, 17, and 14, etc. are dismissed on the grounds of the above determination.

【Omission of Calculation Table of Retirement Allowances】

Justices Cho Jae-dae (Presiding Justice)