(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.07 2016나4677 | 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) 대전지방법원 2017.02.07 2016나4677

임금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 7, 2016, Nonparty G entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant with respect to the multi-family house (hereinafter “instant construction”) located in the Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Defendant entered into a subcontract with Nonparty J on the instant construction project, and J performed the construction work as the site manager in relation to the instant construction project.

C. The Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties (hereinafter both the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) were employed by the Defendant, and provided the Defendant with labor from May 2014 to August 3, 2014 as the number of trees at the construction site of this case.

[Based on Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 6 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) through 7, Eul evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff et al.’s assertion 1) was employed by the Defendant on May 2014 and provided labor at the construction site of the instant case, and the number of metals was determined as a result of the occurrence of wage delayed payment. Nonparty G, the owner of the instant construction site, promised to “self-employed would directly pay wages” and provided labor from July 23, 2014 to August 3, 2014. The Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff et al. wages and losses due to the Defendant’s assertion. 2) However, it was true that the Defendant directly employed the Plaintiff et al. and is jointly and severally obligated to pay the Plaintiff et al. the unpaid wages and losses due to delay. However, the Plaintiff et al. did not have any obligation to pay the wages sought by the Plaintiff et al. on July 2014.

B. Determination of the scope of recognition of unpaid wages sought by the Plaintiff, etc. on July 23, 2014 to August 3, 2014

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.11.28 2016가단15838

-부산지방법원 2014.05.27 2012가단7003

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2019.09.19 2018가단489

-인천지방법원 2020.12.03 2020나60614

-창원지방법원 2017.06.21 2016나3540