logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.05.24 2012가합8713
퇴직금
Text

1. The Defendant: 23,262,750 won to Plaintiff A; 47,269,791 won to Plaintiff B; 39,428,815 won to Plaintiff C; and 5,073.

Reasons

1. Basic facts are the Defendant’s companies engaged in debt collection and credit investigation with the permission of the authorities under the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act. Plaintiff A is the Plaintiff’s company on April 1, 2003; Plaintiff B is the Plaintiff’s company on April 1, 200; Plaintiff C is the Plaintiff’s company on March 1, 2002; and Plaintiff D entered into a delegation agreement with each Defendant company on September 1, 2010; Plaintiff D is the retired company on December 31, 201, while taking charge of the collection of general claims and special claims accepted by the Defendant company from the creditors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' worker nature

A. The plaintiffs asserted 1) since they provided labor to the defendant company for the purpose of wages, such as receiving considerable command and supervision from the defendant company, in conducting claims collection business of the defendant company, they constitute workers prescribed in the Labor Standards Act. 2) The plaintiffs asserted by the defendant company concluded a claim collection delegation contract with the defendant company and performed their duties in accordance with the delegation contract, and did not receive any direction and supervision from the defendant company in the course of performing their duties, so they do not constitute workers prescribed in the Labor Standards

(b) Facts under recognition may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, as set out in Gap evidence Nos. 4 to 15, and No. 9 to 12.

1) The debt collection sources, such as the Plaintiffs, worked at the office provided by the Defendant Company, and performed the credit management and collection work by being provided with computerized network IDs from the Defendant Company. 2) The Defendant Company set the credit collection agency’s attendance hours at 09:00 and the retirement hours at 19:00, respectively, as 19:00, respectively, and require the Defendant Company to enter the commuting hours and the reasons for departure from the workplace every day.

arrow