(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.09.30 2015나6856 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.09.30 2015나6856

노임

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, upon the Defendant’s on-site director or proxy’s request, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 11,290,00 to the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff dispatched human resources to the solar power plant construction site (hereinafter “instant construction site”) from August 4, 2013 to October 31 of the same year, and that, as the Plaintiff paid the said father’s labor cost, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 11,290,00 to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant merely subcontracted the instant construction to the E company and did not grant the power of attorney to conclude the instant construction contract on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no evidence that the amount payable for labor cost reaches KRW 1,129,00,00, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant provided labor equivalent to the above amount.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 and the testimony of the witness of the party witness C, C may acknowledge the fact that C had performed the construction work at the instant construction site. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the defendant can acknowledge the fact that C (a personal business operator registered as E) has subcontracted the instant construction work to C (a business operator registered as E). Thus, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that C was granted the right of representation to conclude a labor contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the head of the site office or employee of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

② Moreover, each statement of evidence No. 1 (written statement of claim for labor cost prepared by the Plaintiff), evidence Nos. 2 (written statement of decision on provisional seizure), and evidence Nos. 3 (written confirmation) is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid labor cost to KRW 11,290,00, or that the Plaintiff actually paid the said money to the person, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2...

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2015.03.26 2014가합600

-인천지방법원 2015.01.28 2014나14610

-수원지방법원안산지원 2014.10.14 2013가단36705

-대전지방법원 2016.03.31 2014가합105718

-제주지방법원 2019.10.16 2018나13967