(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.11.05 2018나5058 | 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) 인천지방법원 2019.11.05 2018나5058

임금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. An overview of the parties 1) The Defendant is a person who runs a real estate rental business, etc. under the trade name of “E” with the name of “E” as the spouse’s representative. 2) G is a person who runs a construction business, etc. under the trade name of “H”, and the Plaintiff and the designated parties are those who work as a daily worker for construction.

B. 1) On May 11, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with G to enter into a construction agreement with G to set up four of the construction works for the new construction of a canal wells located in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, with the construction cost of KRW 4,00,000 per square meter (excluding value-added tax). Meanwhile, from July 11, 2016 at the construction site of the above canal wells, construction works for installing parking lots and septic tanks (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

C. (1) The Plaintiff and the designated parties were the business owner in arrears with the Defendant on July 7, 2017, and the Plaintiff was issued a written confirmation of the wages of the Plaintiff from July 11, 2016 to August 18, 2016 (i) from July 11, 2016 to (ii) from July 11, 2016 to August 18, 2016, and (iii) from 1980,000, total amount of KRW 10,450,000, and KRW 220,000,000, and KRW 20,000, from July 17, 2016 to 20, and KRW 1,980,000, total of KRW 10,450,000,000, and KRW 98,000,000.

The Defendant also contracted the instant construction to G as well as the said other canal well as the said construction work. As such, the Plaintiff and the designated parties should pay G wages.

G stated that the instant construction was to be handled directly by the Defendant at the time of the initial investigation by the Labor Agency. However, the Defendant’s defense counsel is that the instant construction was to be handled directly by the Defendant, but after the investigation by the prosecution, the fact that the Plaintiff and the designated parties have led to the settlement of accounts by being awarded a contract as well as the construction of another canal spice, and that the payment liability for the Plaintiff and the

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2014.07.24 2013가단21653

-광주지방법원순천지원 2016.03.25 2014가단21353

-창원지방법원 2017.09.19 2016구합702

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.09 2017가단33085

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.11.10 2016가단514