Whether or not remuneration may be claimed in case where the overlapping has provided labor for a father in the overlapping relationship.

Even if the overlapping is the representative of the father's business and participated in the management of the business, it is reasonable to view that the overlapping relationship was established, unless there are other special circumstances, as the wife or the person living together with the father's business, and even if he/she has attempted to perform the work of the father's business, he/she cannot claim remuneration for the provision of labor.

Article 22 of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 655, 656, and 741 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (75 Gohap430)

From February 21, 1975, the part of the original judgment against the defendant's 570,753 won and the part of the judgment against the defendant's 5% interest rate from February 21, 1975 to the full payment, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is dismissed.

All of the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be five-minutes through the first and second trials, and four-minutes shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining one by the defendant.

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount calculated by applying the rate of 25 percent per annum from October 1, 1973 to the full payment date for the amount of KRW 600,550,000 per annum for the amount of KRW 600,000 per annum and the amount of KRW 2,550,000 per annum for the amount of KRW 60,000 per annum from October 1, 1973 to the full payment date. When the above amount cannot be paid, the amount of KRW 895,00 per annum and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 25 percent per annum from October 1, 1973 to the full payment date.

2. The defendant shall return to the plaintiff the movable property stated in the attached list, and if it is impossible to do so, he shall pay 635,000 won.

3. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(Effect of plaintiff's appeal) The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,50,000 with 5% per annum from the day following the service of the amount to the day after the completion of the service. (2) If it is impossible to return the money, 635,000 won shall be paid to the plaintiff. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

(Effect of Defendant’s Appeal) The part against the Defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. In full view of the whole purport of the oral proceedings with respect to the plaintiff's loan claim, the statement of No. 1 which does not dispute the establishment, and the testimony of non-party 1 of the original trial and the trial witness (except for the portion not trusted below) of the court below, the defendant, in order to operate the former production station around February 1973, borrowed 1,100,000 won from the plaintiff who will purchase 1,950,000 won of the above ground house and factory building from the plaintiff who will purchase 1,950,000 won of the above ground house and factory building around 1,950,000 in order to operate the former production station, and then on August 18, 198, it can be recognized that the period of repayment was extended to September 30 of the next year, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

However, the plaintiff agreed to the above loan interest rate of 3% per month, and it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the testimony of non-party 1 of the above witness and part of the result of the examination of the criminal records as shown above, which seems consistent with the agreement to repay as a unification converted into the exchange rate of the due date, are not believed, and that the above certificate of non-party 1 is written as 1,100,000 United Nations. (In accordance with the whole purport of the argument, it is difficult to view that the defendant was written as the Japan Japan as the Japan Japan Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan'

한편, 원고는 1975.2.경 피고로부터 위 대여금중 금 500,000원을 변제받은 사실을 스스로 인정하면서 피고에 대하여 그 나머지 금원의 지급을 청구함에 대하여 피고는 첫째로, 나머지 원금 600,000원은 전화구입을 위하여 차용하여 약정대로 원고명의에로 전화가입절차를 이행하였으니 변제된 것이라는 취지로 항변하나 이에 일부 부합하는 원심증인 소외 2의 증언과 위 형사기록검증의 결과의 일부는 믿지 아니하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로 위 항변은 그 이유가 없고, 둘째로, 위 나머지 원금 600,000원은 원고가 1975. 그경 피고소유의 전화기 1대(번호 8-2874)를 스스로 대금 700,000원에 처분하여 이를 횡령하였으니 그 손해배상채권으로서 상계하면 결국 모두 변제한 셈이 된다고 주장하나 위 주장의 전화가입권이 피고소유라는데 대한 위 형사기록검증결과의 일부와 당심증인 소외 3의 일부 증언은 믿지아니하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로 그 이유가 없고, 셋째로, 원고가 1975.2.20. 피고소유의 일화 230만엔과 카메라1대 싯가 금 115,200원상당, 라디오 1대 싯가 금 112,000원상당, 식칼1개 싯가 금 7,680원상당과 미화 1,000불을 한화로 인출한 금 480,000원을 횡령하였다가 그중 한화 480,000원을 제외한 나머지는 모두 피고에게 반환하였으나 나머지 480,000원은 지금까지 반환하지않고 있으므로 그 손해배상채권과 대등액에서 상계를 한다고 하므로 살피건대, 원심증인 소외 2, 당심증인 소외 3, 원심 및 당심증인 소외 1의 각 증언(이중 각 믿지아니하는 부분제외)과 위 형사기록검증의 결과의 일부에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고는 제일교포로서 혼인신고는 되어있지 아니하였으나 일본에 처자가 있는 사람인데 1973.2.경부터 원고와 부첩관계를 맺고 부산 동구 범일동 (지번 생략)에 전구 등의 제조업체인 (이름 생략)제작소를 설치하고, 일본과 한국을 내왕하면서 이를 실질적으로 경영하였으되 다만 그 대표자명의는 원고의 이름으로 하였고, 피고가 일본에 가 있을 때에도 원고도 사실상 위 업체의 경영에 관여하여 왔으며 소외 1이 위 업체의 경리사무를 맡아보고 있었는데 원고는 피고가 1975.2.20. 12:30경 일본에서 가져와서 원고에게 맡겨둔 일화 230만엔, 카메라1대, 라디오1대, 식칼1개와 그날 14:30경 외환은행 부산지점에서 피고가 송금한 미화 1,000불을 한화로 인출하여 그중 71,000원을 보관함을 기화로 그날 20:40경 피고가 출타 부재중인 틈을 타서 위 보관물을 임의로 횡령하여 도주하였다가 같은달 21. 23:00경 부산역에서 체포되어 위 횡령한 금품중 금 71,000원을 제외한 나머지 물건은 압수되어 피고에게 환부되고 위 돈은 원고가 이미 소비하여 버려서 피해회복이 되지아니한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 일부 어긋나는 위 형사기록검증의 결과는 당원이 믿지아니하는 바이며, 달리 반증이 없으니 원고는 피고에게 위 불법행위로 인하여 취득한 돈 71,000원을 배상할 의무가 있다고 할 것이고, 이 손해배상채권은 그 발생일인 1975.2.20. 현재 원고의 피고에 대한 위의 대여금채권과 상계적상에 놓여있다고 할 것인즉 이를 그 대등액에서 상계하면 위 대여금 600,000원에 대한 약정변제기이후인 1973.10.1.부터 1975.2.20.까지 민사법정이율인 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 지연손해금 41,753원(600,000X1/1 143/365)에 우선 상계하고 남은 금 29,247원 (71,000-41,753)을 위 대여금 원금에다 충당하고 나면 원고의 피고에 대한 대여금은 1975.2.20.현재 금 570,753원(600,000-29,247)만이 남게 된다고 할 것이다.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining principal 570,753 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from February 21, 1975 to the full payment.

2. We examine the plaintiff's claim for indemnity.

The plaintiff at around February 1975, when the non-party 1 retired, demanded the defendant to pay the monthly salary of 50,000 won and retirement allowance to the plaintiff on the ground that he was not the representative director, so it is inevitable that the plaintiff paid 150,000 won, including the above salary and retirement allowance to be paid by the defendant as his own personal money. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that he claimed the monetary compensation, but there is no other evidence to prove that the contents of the corresponding evidence No. 3, and part of the testimony of the non-party 1 and the result of the verification of the criminal records of the non-party 1 as well as the witness mentioned above, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion.

3. As to the plaintiff's request for delivery of movables

The plaintiff asserted that, around February 1975, when the defendant forced the withdrawal of the plaintiff, the defendant illegally occupied the movable property recorded in the attached list, which is the plaintiff's proprietary property, and thus, it is impossible to return it, the plaintiff claimed the return of the movable property, and the plaintiff sought the payment of 685,000 won. However, the non-party 1's testimony of the witness witness 1 is insufficient to recognize that the movable property is the plaintiff's proprietary property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus,

4. Finally, we examine the plaintiff's claim for remuneration.

As a result of the plaintiff's work inside and outside as a representative for the defendant's factory during the period of living together with the defendant, today's factory built the foundation for maintaining beer. If so, the principle of work and salary should also be applied to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's compensation. In light of the non-party 1's monthly wage of 50,000 won, which was a person in charge of the above factory accounting, at least 10,000 won per month, should be paid to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's compensation for two years from February 1973 to February 2, 1975, which the plaintiff provided labor, claimed that 2,400,000 won should be paid as remuneration for the two years from February 1973 to February 2, 1975. Thus, the plaintiff had already been involved in the operation of the above business during the absence of the defendant, but there is no special reason to view the plaintiff's compensation relationship as a person living together with the defendant.

5. Consultations

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection is justified only within the extent recognized in the above Paragraph 1, and the remainder is unfair and dismissed. Since the part of the judgment against the defendant exceeds the above cited scope is unfair, it is revoked in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the remaining appeal of the defendant and the plaintiff are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 89, and Article 92 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)