(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.20 2015가합2686

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) 수원지방법원 2016.05.20 2015가합2686

해고무효확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant concludes an entrustment management contract with a land owner operator, mainly for the purpose of transportation brokerage and cargo transportation business, and has a land owner operator carry out transportation business entrusted by the defendant.

B. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased 17 million won from the Defendant to carry on the transportation business by a booming system. On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded an employment contract with the Defendant to sell the said vehicle to the Defendant again and to serve as a delivery engineer directly operated by the Defendant.

At the time, the plaintiff and the defendant set up a loan certificate of KRW 15 million with respect to the vehicle price that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff, and agreed on the period of employment as follows:

1) The Defendant shall ensure that he/she works for the Plaintiff’s direct management engineer for six months (from November 26, 2014 to May 26, 2015). When the Plaintiff retires from office for six months, he/she shall pay KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff. 2) If the vehicle is sold within six months, he/she shall retire from office and pay KRW 16 million instead of retirement of the direct management engineer.

3) The amount of benefits shall be KRW 1.7 million and shall be paid on the 15th day of each month. 4) The Plaintiff cannot have a direct engineer before the vehicle is sold.

C. The Defendant entered into a delivery service contract with the Human Entertainment et al. (hereinafter “ Entertainment”) and entrusted the delivery of goods to the convenience store designated by the Human Entertainment. The Plaintiff was working as a direct engineer for the Defendant, while performing the said delivery service.

According to the delivery service contract concluded between the Defendant and the Human Library, where the delivery is not possible due to an accident, absence, leave of absence, etc., of the delivery engineer belonging to the Defendant, the Human Library may request the Defendant to rectify the replacement of the delivery engineer, etc., and where the Defendant’s failure to comply with the request causes interference with the Human Library’s work, the Human Library’s contract can be immediately terminated.

However, there is a problem.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2014.12.10 2013가합10228

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.28 2013가단265501

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.29 2015가단49508

-광주지방법원 2020.06.18 2020고단623

-수원지방법원 2020.12.15 2018가단533009