beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. Plaintiff A’s KRW 6,539,952 as well as 6% per annum from August 27, 2011 to June 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 1, 2009, the Defendant (Seoul High Credit Information Company, which was changed on August 31, 2009, was delegated to a credit information company specializing in debt collection, including installment financing. On July 1, 2009, the Defendant’s credit information company, Korea Credit Information Company (which was established on March 5, 2010 by dividing the debt collection business into one another, and was changed to another on March 7, 2014; hereinafter “Korea High Credit Information Company”) and the Central Credit Information Company, etc., which was delegated to a credit information company specializing in debt collection, including credit information companies specializing in debt collection.
(hereinafter referred to as “the credit information company of this case”). B.
The plaintiffs performed the business of collecting the defendant's claims for each of the periods stated in the attached table "period of work", and the certificate prepared by the credit information company of this case stated that the plaintiffs performed the business of collecting claims from the above credit information company after delegation of the defendant's debt to the above credit information company.
Plaintiff
Credit information companies A during the contract period, between July 1, 2009 and August 11, 201, 201, the Central Credit Information Company B from July 1, 2009 to November 30, 201, and Korea-Japan Credit Information C from Sep. 1, 2009 to Nov. 31, 2012; the same shall apply to the credit information acquired from Sep. 1, 2009 to Nov. 30, 201; and the credit information No. 10 to Sep. 13, 201; and the credit information No. 10635, Jul. 1, 2009 to Feb. 28, 2013; the same shall apply to each of the credit information No. 13535, Oct. 1, 2011; and the same shall apply to the evidence No. 10635, Jan. 21, 2015.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiffs asserted that they are the plaintiffs' employees during the period specified in the attached Table "period of work" as the defendant's employees. Thus, the defendant stated each of the plaintiffs' retirement allowances in the above table "retirement allowances" as the defendant's employees.