(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.08.22 2011가단468160

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.08.22 2011가단468160

급여 등

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 40,739,496 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from July 6, 2012 to August 22, 2012.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6:

From April 1, 2008 to November 22, 201, the Plaintiff was affiliated with the Defendant who runs the debt collection business and was in charge of the debt collection business.

B. The Plaintiff shared “B’s debt collection business (rate 20%)” from the Defendant, and deposited KRW 6,00,000,000 on March 10, 201, and KRW 40,00,000 on June 23, 2011, respectively, with the Defendant’s agent, transferred all of them to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant on November 7, 2011.

C. On the other hand, the Defendant received at least KRW 12,750,000 from the side of B in terms of fees in relation to the credit collection business requested by B on December 15, 201, which was subsequent to the Plaintiff’s establishment.

2. The Plaintiff’s determination as to whether a person is an employee and the nature of the commission fee is based on the premise that the employee is an employee under the direction and supervision of the Defendant, the Defendant concluded a delegation contract and claimed that the employee is not an employee.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 6 through 10, the plaintiff constitutes a worker who has provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the defendant who is the employer, and the above recognition is not sufficient to dismiss the above recognition just with the statement Nos. 1, 7, 10, and 16.

Therefore, it is recognized that fee allowances paid by the defendant also constitute wages in return for the provision of labor.

(1) The claims collection business shall not neglect the management of any person in charge of collection, such as the plaintiff, due to the relationship between the client and the debtor's personal information and credit information.

It is doubtful whether it can guarantee the smooth progress of claims collection business due to a scarcity connection that the defendant asserts.

② The Defendant is the same as the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.08.22 2011가단468160

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.04.24 2012나43859

-서울남부지방법원 2020.10.15 2019가단268294

-서울서부지방법원 2015.08.11 2014가단228832

-서울서부지방법원 2019.10.18 2018나42365