logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.10.15 2018나3289
노임
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 following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2:

During the period from May 30, 2016 to June 6, 2016, the Plaintiff provided labor for 180,000 won per day at the Gyeonggi-gun C and D construction site (hereinafter “instant construction site”) and for 6 days.

B. On June 2016, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant, stating that “E did not pay the agreed wage to be paid after the completion of the construction work even if the E had already been paid the construction work from the owner of the instant construction site, and acquired it by deception without paying the agreed wage.”

C. On May 2, 2019, E was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three months and six months for a crime, such as “The fact is false that he/she would pay the Defendant the construction cost and personnel expenses, etc. on or around May 2, 2016, although he/she had no intent or ability to pay the construction cost, and that he/she had the Defendant do construction work at the construction site of this case and obtain the Defendant a total of KRW 15,930,000 and KRW 18,438,000 for the personnel expenses of the husband and wife and obtain by deception.”

(Li Government District Court 2019No89). 2. Claims and judgments

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is liable to pay the plaintiff wages of 1080,000 won (180,000 won x 6 days) and damages for delay since the defendant agreed to receive 180,000 won per day as a result of defective work as the construction site of this case and provided labor.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant agreed to receive a daily wage as the plaintiff and did not have an obligation to pay the above wages since he did not have concluded an employment contract with the plaintiff as a part of work at the construction site of this case.

B. Generally, who is the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

A juristic act between the parties;

arrow