beta
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. Purport of the claim.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. C operated the so-called “office-general hospital” under the name of medical personnel even though the Evalescent in Daegu-gu is not a medical personnel. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant permitted C to operate the said hospital in the name of the Defendant, thereby becoming the nominal owner of the said hospital.
B. On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff provided labor by July 1, 2014, under employment in the said Evalescent, and retired from office, and provided labor again on July 14, 2014. On July 1, 2014, the retirement pay was KRW 8,474,030.
C. The Plaintiff received a dividend of KRW 471,627, which is a part of the retirement allowances in arrears, as a person with preferential interest in payment of retirement allowances, according to the Daegu District Court’s distribution procedure.
On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff received substitute payment of KRW 4,527,870 as part of the retirement pay from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of the claim and the employer liable to pay retirement allowances under the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits and the Labor Standards Act “the employer who acts on behalf of the employer, the person in charge of the management of the business, and other matters relating to workers,” and according to the above basic facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay as the operator of the instant hospital, the amount of unpaid retirement allowances of 3,474,533 ( KRW 8,474,030 - 471,627 - 4,527,870) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 1, 2014, which is the date of retirement of the Plaintiff, to the date of complete payment from July 16, 2014, which is the date of retirement of the Plaintiff.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that he was not the actual operator of the instant hospital from August 16, 2012 to the public, but was employed by C and was merely the monthly wage. The Defendant’s assertion that he was not the actual operator of the instant hospital was the head of the instant hospital.