beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and its extended and added claims are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the parties’ assertion and the claim for wages (including the expanded part) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for
In accordance with the amendment of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in the trial at the trial at the trial at the court of the first instance, the 10th class 7th class "(i) of the second class 7 of the judgment at the trial at the court of the second class 7th class " shall be claimed to pay the 84,549,798 won plus the 76,271,140 won and retirement allowance8,278,658 won which have not been paid during the above period and the delay damages therefor." The 84,549,798 won which has not been paid during the above period and the 15th class "claim(s)" of the 14th class to "claim(s)" shall be written as "and retirement allowance claim", and the 15th class
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court stated that the plaintiff had an implied employment relationship with the defendant from July 2006 to July 2017. However, in light of the circumstances that correspond to the oil transport contract asserted by the defendant rather than the employment relationship alleged by the plaintiff, the contents set forth in No. 1 (Recording) and No. 5-1 to No. 5-3 (each pledge) shall be deemed as follows: "No. 2, 4, 5, and 7 (including additional numbers)"; the second part "fact," set forth in Part 19 shall be deemed as "fact," and the second part shall be deleted from the last 2 to the second 3rd 2.
2. The plaintiff asserts that "the plaintiff has a duty to pay retirement allowances calculated on the basis of wages of urban daily workers since July 2006 as the defendant's employee for about 10 years from around July 2006, since he was performing the oil delivery business."
The plaintiff's above assertion is premised on the existence of a labor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant during the above period.