logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.06.13 2018나72782
간병비
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. From October 5, 2016 to January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of nursing expenses of KRW 2,887,00 and damages for delay against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff performed nursing services in the Dvalescent Hospital located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.

However, according to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including a branch number), the defendant, while operating a job placement office under the name of E, mainly connected nursing workers to hospital and patients, received nursing expenses from the hospital and paid them to nursing workers after deducting nursing expenses. ② The defendant also introduced the above services as nursing workers of the hospital, and ③ the above D convalescent hospital delayed the payment of nursing expenses for the plaintiff's nursing service due to the occurrence of the suspension of payment.

However, such factual basis alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had a direct employment relationship with the Plaintiff or nursing relationship beyond being in charge of mediating services as nursing and receiving and conveying nursing expenses (the Plaintiff also recognized that the Defendant was not in charge of receiving a certain job placement fee as a job placement service provider) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it cannot be found that there are no grounds under the contract and law that the defendant is obligated to pay nursing expenses to the plaintiff when the defendant did not receive the Plaintiff’s nursing expenses from the D hospital, and therefore, the plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

2. The plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is reasonable.

The judgment of the first instance court is unfair in conclusion with different conclusions, and thus, it is so revoked and decided as per Disposition by the defendant.

arrow