logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울고등법원 2017.11.03 2017누55680
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following supplementary judgments as to the allegations emphasized by the plaintiff in the trial, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) On February 2, 201, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds that the Plaintiff asserted in the trial at the trial while filing an appeal is not significantly different from the contents as alleged in the first instance court.

A. According to the evidence evidence Eul, as to whether F is deemed an employee of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff submitted a written answer to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission around October 15, 2015, and attached the Plaintiff’s wage ledger from June to August 2015 as reference material. The pertinent wage ledger contains the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 1,100,000 per month, including that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,10,000 per month to F employed on December 1, 2013 and KRW 1,100,000 per month to F employed on December 1, 2013, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,10,000 per month to five workers, including C, as reference material. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem F to have been the Plaintiff’s employee from December 1, 2013 to August 2015.

The plaintiff asserts that F is merely a member of the plaintiff and actually a member of H, which is operated by the representative director of the plaintiff.

However, F is in charge of H's work

Even if the plaintiff voluntarily reported F to the National Health Insurance Corporation, etc. as an employee of the plaintiff and paid F benefits to the plaintiff, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as changing F to H.

In addition, when the director who was in charge of accounting affairs by the plaintiff retires from his office around October 2013, he had F perform the work of theO from December 1, 2013.