(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.06 2016가단36610

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) 부산지방법원 2016.12.06 2016가단36610

노무비등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff, who provides job placement services under the Plaintiff’s oral contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, is obligated to provide the Plaintiff with human resources worth KRW 84,50,000,000,000 from January 1, 2016 to January 29, 2016, upon receiving a request from the Defendant’s site director C to supply human resources. From January 16, 2016 to February 14, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied human resources worth KRW 115,560,00,000 ( KRW 9.5,50,000,000) to the Plaintiff at the construction site of a convalescent hospital. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the human resources supply cost to the Plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant denies the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a human resources supply contract with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant ordered C to work with the Plaintiff, but argued that C was merely a subcontractor who entered into a human resources supply contract with the Plaintiff, so it is difficult to recognize that the labor resources supply contract was concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff even based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

B. The Defendant, who is a direct contractor C, is jointly and severally liable to pay the worker’s wages to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act, even if the Plaintiff’s domestic work obligation to pay wages under Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act was not concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

(2) We examine the judgment, and Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act only stipulates that the immediate upper-tier contractor is responsible for paying wages to workers, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above provision is based on the obligation to pay indemnity to the Plaintiff, who is a human resources supplier.

C. (1) Even if the Plaintiff’s alleged family affairs and C are not the Defendant’s employee, C uses the name cards entered as the Defendant’s field director, and the Defendant paid labor expenses for two months prior to the instant provision of labor. In light of the fact that the Defendant used the name cards entered as the Defendant’s field director, and that the Defendant

참조조문

-근로기준법 제44조의2

유사 판례

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2017.08.08 2016가단8275

-광주지방법원 2019.04.26 2018나57864

-의정부지방법원 2016.07.01 2016가단6217

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.10.14 2018가단17876

-부산지방법원 2018.11.16 2018나43958