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..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From July 13, 2013 to July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff worked at the workplace located in Kimhae-si C.
B. The Plaintiff did not receive the total of KRW 690,00,000, out of KRW 2,070,000 for April 2016, and KRW 2,160,00 for May 2, 2016, and KRW 2,070,00 for June 2016, and KRW 1,350,00 for the wages of KRW 1,350,00 for July 2016.
C. D was issued a summary order on December 12, 2016 by the Changwon District Court Decision 201Da11388, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s actual manager of the Defendant Company was not paid KRW 6,270,000 in total for the wages from April 201 to July 2016” and the said summary order was finalized on February 28, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3-1 to 11, Evidence No. 6-8 of Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an employment contract with D, the actual representative of the Defendant Company, and provided labor under direct employment by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wage of KRW 6,270,000 as an employer and the delayed payment thereof. Even if the Plaintiff was employed by lending the Defendant’s name, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid wage to the Plaintiff who entered into an employment contract with D as the nominal owner of the name.
Furthermore, D entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff as if it had the authority to represent the Defendant, and the Defendant knowingly and neglected D’s act while disregarding it, so it should be held liable for D’s act by applying Article 395 of the Commercial Act mutatis mutandis.
B. The defendant's assertion that there is no employment contract entered into with the plaintiff, and the person who actually entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff is D.
The defendant only allowed D to temporarily use the name of the defendant until it establishes another company, and the plaintiff also knew that D is not the defendant but the actual employer, so the defendant is the nominal lender.