logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.20 2015나26414
퇴직금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of debt collection and credit investigation upon obtaining permission from the Financial Services Commission in accordance with the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act.

B. The Plaintiffs concluded a contract with the Defendant for debt collection services (the name was changed from around 2011 to “a delegation contract”; hereinafter “instant contract”) and retired from office as the Defendant’s debt collection source at several points under the Defendant’s control during the period indicated in the “period of work” column in attached Table 2.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 15 and 40 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted, notwithstanding the form or name of the instant contract, provided labor to the Defendant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, who is practically determined by the Labor Standards Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act to the plaintiffs.

B. In light of the Defendant’s assertion form or the actual duties of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs are merely an individual entrepreneur who performs claims collection business delegated by the Defendant and received fees according to the outcome thereof.

Therefore, since the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as workers under the Labor Standards Act, the plaintiffs' claim for retirement allowance is without merit.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act

A. Determination of whether a worker is a worker under the relevant legal doctrine is an employment contract or a contract for work. Determination of whether a worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace should be made depending on whether the worker provided labor for the purpose of wages. Determination of whether a subordinate relationship exists is determined by the employer and the rules of employment or employment

arrow