beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the [Attachment I] List Nos. 1 through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 61, 69 through 73, and 77 through 84.
Reasons
1. Of the judgment of the court below, the appeal against the appeal by the plaintiffs as stated in Nos. 1 through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 61, 69 through 73, and 77 through 84 of the plaintiffs' list of plaintiffs in the judgment below is to seek revocation or alteration in favor of them.
In principle, whether a judgment is disadvantageous to appellant or not shall be determined on the basis of the main text of the judgment. Thus, if there is no complaint about the cited part of the claim in the main text of the judgment, even if there is a complaint for the reason of the judgment, there
In light of the records, the court below accepted the claim of this case seeking confirmation that the above plaintiffs are in the defendant's worker status. However, the court below erred in holding that the above plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have established an implied labor contract relationship with the defendant on the ground that there was no complaint as to the order of the court below, but it erred in the part that determined that the above plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have established an implied labor contract relationship with the defendant. Thus, it is evident that the court below filed an appeal.
Therefore, the above plaintiffs' appeal is unlawful as it has no interest in appeal.
2. The court below, based on the adopted evidence, acknowledged the circumstances as stated in its holding, based on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal as stated in Nos. 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, and 85 through 87 of the plaintiffs' list Nos. 1, 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, and 87 of the plaintiffs' list, found that an implied labor contract relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant cannot be concluded
Therefore, the above plaintiffs and the defendant rejected the primary claim seeking confirmation that the above plaintiffs are in the defendant's worker status on the premise that an implied employment contract relationship exists between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
The judgment of the court below.