logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2017.06.07 2016가단12836
대체근로자 급여 및 퇴직금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling packing materials by making the sound group C, which is the location of its principal office.

On September 16, 2009, the Plaintiff established a company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling the pelb boxes, processing business, etc., and the employees retired from the Defendant at the Defendant’s place of business.

B. Around September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply raw and secondary materials from the Defendant and produce products at the Defendant’s workplace, and the Defendant entered into a contract to pay the Plaintiff the processing amounting to 8.5% of the processed product value and a contract to lease buildings and machinery necessary to implement the said contract.

The defendant's business division has the business division, B/A business division, T/W business division, and the defendant entrusted the plaintiff with the business of the original foundation, marking printing process, and steel processing process among T/W business division in accordance with the above contract for processing.

C. On November 30, 2009, the Defendant was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures with the Cheongju District Court 2009 Joint17, and the rehabilitation plan approval was issued on August 9, 2010.

From January 2010 to January 2012, 2012, 8 employees of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) performed duties concerning D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K pertaining to D/A’s part of the Defendant’s work from January 201 to January 2012.

The plaintiff paid wages and retirement allowances to the above workers around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was subject to restrictions on the employment of foreign workers during the rehabilitation procedure, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to employ foreign workers from January 2, 2010 to January 2012, and all of the expenses incurred therein shall be paid by settling accounts at the time when the Defendant’s management becomes normal.

arrow