logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.08.25 2020가단212419
퇴직금
Text

1. The defendant stated the "legal retirement allowance" in the annexed retirement allowance calculation sheet to the plaintiffs, as well as the corresponding money.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of the duty to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs

A. Determination as to whether an employee is a worker under the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on whether an employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace, and whether an employer has a subordinate relationship should be determined by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the employer’s contents of work; (b) whether the employer has a reasonable direction and supervision in the process of performing duties under the rules of employment or the rules of employment; (c) whether the employer is subject to detention; (d) whether the employer is able to operate his/her business on his/her own account on his/her own account; (e) whether the employer owns equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc.; and (e) whether the employer has a risk, such as creation of profit and loss by providing labor; (e) whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of labor; (e) whether the basic wage or fixed wage was determined; and (e) whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer and its degree; and (e) whether the social security system is recognized as an employee under the statutes.

However, the circumstances, such as whether a basic wage or fixed wage was determined, whether a labor income tax was withheld, and whether a person is recognized as an employee in a social security system, should not readily deny the nature of an employee solely on the ground that the employer is not recognized as having been arbitrarily determined by taking advantage of the economic superior status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da2048, Jun. 14, 2012).

Judgment

It is known in full view of each description of Gap evidence 2 through 18 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of pleadings.

arrow