logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.09.14 2018구합3967
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. B is a company that employs approximately 70 full-time workers and engages in business activities, such as acting as an agent in concluding insurance contracts, maintaining and managing insurance contracts, which is entrusted by an insurance company.

B. B and the Plaintiff concluded a commission contract on May 2, 2017 (hereinafter “instant commission contract”); and B sent to the Plaintiff, on December 1, 2017, a content-certified mail, stating that the instant commission contract is terminated on the grounds of abusiveism, violence, etc. against insurance solicitors in the same workplace.

C. On December 4, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was subject to unfair dismissal from B, and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on January 30, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiff, an insurance solicitor, does not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

Seoul (Seoul 2017da2659, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case") d.

On March 2, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination on March 2, 2018, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 20, 2018, deeming that the Plaintiff did not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act as in the instant first inquiry tribunal.

(Central 2018 Sub-Appellant 219, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that no dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion B was rejected by the Plaintiff, the judgment of the retrial of this case was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The main contents of the instant commission contract are as follows. Article 2 of the instant commission contract (Status) of the instant commission contract

1. An insurance solicitor shall be a business income earner and shall carry out the tasks entrusted by the Company (referring to B) under this Agreement as an independent business operator, and an insurance agency, qualified and insurance solicitor.

arrow