logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2017.09.05 2016가단53000
임금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Facts of recognition

C on August 22, 2014, the personal enterprise called “D” was established.

D intended to receive a contract for E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) from the KNB, and the KNB expressed that D is not a corporate entity on the part of the KNB, and that C was appointed as a joint representative director of the defendant company on September 18, 2015, after obtaining the F, a holder of the equity interest of the defendant company, with the consent of F, which is 100% of the equity interest of the defendant company.

On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered D and worked at the instant construction site as D’s employees from that time to December 31, 2015. On January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company and worked from that time to March 4, 2016.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 24,158,020, out of the benefits paid from March 10, 2015 to December 31, 2015, during which the Plaintiff worked as an employee of D and Defendant at the instant construction site.

Both the Defendant and D are companies owned by C, and the Defendant succeeds to the obligation to pay wages to the Plaintiff, so the Defendant must pay D’s wages to the Plaintiff.

Since the Defendant and D are different companies, and the Defendant did not take over the wage obligation against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable.

Judgment

While the Plaintiff was employed as D’s employee at the construction site of this case from March 10, 2015 to December 31, 2015, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was a business entity identical to D or taken over the Plaintiff’s wage liability with respect to the Plaintiff, taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the statement and pleading as stated in subparagraph 4, and the following circumstances.

arrow