beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. According to Party A’s evidence as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Gangwon-do Office of Labor and Labor and Labor and the Gangwon-do Office issued a “written confirmation of overdue wage, etc.” that verified the Plaintiff on June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff on February 1, 2014 through February 28, 2015, the Defendant in arrears, the overdue wage, etc., totaling KRW 20,393,646 as follows (i.e., wages of KRW 16,408,50 retirement pay of KRW 3,230,136 year-end refund of KRW 75,010).
Under the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 20,701,393,646 won in total, and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 16,408,500 to the 2,701,501,500-14.4.2, 2,701,500-15.2,701,500-15.2,701,500-75,010-16,408,508,500-3,230,230,1365,010-2,70-2,70-2,70-2,70-2,70-14.2,70-2,700-2,000-2,70,000-2,70,000-2,393,646 won, and the money and valuables payment period under the Labor Standards Act to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.
2. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff continues his own business under the trade name "C" even while he works as the defendant's employee, and thus does not constitute a worker.
Since the Plaintiff retired from the Defendant Company on January 2014, the Plaintiff was unable to pay only the wages for the previous three months, and there was no subsequent wage, etc.
On July 31, 2015, the defendant paid 19,670,200 won to the plaintiff as wages and retirement allowances, and there was no obligation to pay wages, etc., and the criminal judgment on the violation of the Labor Standards Act against the defendant representative director was pronounced not guilty in the same purport.
3. According to the purport of the evidence evidence No. 1, 8-11 and the entire pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes a worker, the Plaintiff has been engaged in the exhibition and event agency business (hereinafter “non-party business”) from around 2010 to the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C”, and the Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant Company for 2014.