Plaintiff 1 and 12 others (Attorney Shin Young-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea hydroelectric Power Co., Ltd. (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Do-Ba et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 15, 2017

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap79295 Decided July 7, 2016

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The remaining plaintiffs except plaintiffs 7 and 11 verify that they are the defendant's worker status from the date corresponding to the "date of acquisition of worker status" in the attached Table of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant expressed their intention of employment to plaintiffs 7 and 11, and the defendant paid to the plaintiffs each money as stated in the "amount of preliminary claim" in the attached Table above (However, in the case of plaintiffs 9 (7), 1) 56,941,165 won per annum until the date of delivery of the application for amendment of purport of claim as of May 24, 2016, and 15% per annum from the following day until the date of complete payment (the plaintiff was under the premise that an implied labor contract relationship was established at the court of first instance; 1) and 1) preliminary claim (the plaintiff's primary claim (which constitutes both plaintiffs, 7, 110,000 won; 2) and the plaintiff's preliminary claim as to the plaintiff's claim as of May 24, 2016.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The cited part

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s decision is revised as above; and (b) the judgment at the trial is added as above; and (b) the part concerning the remainder of the claim except for the withdrawal by the plaintiffs from the trial; (c) the part concerning the conjunctive claim except for the withdrawal by the plaintiffs in the first instance court; (d) the part concerning the plaintiff 7 and the second preliminary claim by the plaintiff 11, as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The amended portion

1) Each “Korea Industrial Corporation” in the 5th page of the judgment of the first instance court is deemed to be each “Korea Industrial Corporation (main owner)”; “ January 1, 2013” in the 8th page is deemed to be “ March 1, 2013”; “Plaintiff 7 and Plaintiff 11” in the 8th page is deemed to be “Plaintiff 7 and Plaintiff 11,” respectively; and “including the serial number” in the 11th page “including the 10th page,” and “the same shall apply to the case except for the case where the number is indicated particularly.”

2) The first instance court’s decision was just on the “Wil D,” the 13th 19 and 20th 13th 19 and 20th 20th 20, and added the “(see, e.g., reference materials attached to the preparatory brief as of December 11, 2014 when the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy had pointed out such problems in the inspection of the state administration of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy in relation to this part).”

3) Article 14 of the first instance court’s judgment regarding “worker dispatch relationship” as “worker Dispatch relationship”

2. Determination of the attached articles

Although Gap evidence Nos. 2, 9, and 16-2, 13, 38, 72 through 81, 110, 115, 116, Eul evidence Nos. 18-1 through 3, 41, 45, and Gap evidence Nos. 144 through 292, which are pointed out or additionally submitted by the plaintiffs at the trial of the political party, are viewed in the above quoted part, it is difficult to view that the service company employed the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them, and therefore, it is difficult to view that there was a temporary placement relationship with the plaintiffs to have them engaged in the work for the defendant under an entrustment contract with the defendant while maintaining the employment relationship with the defendant. Thus, the argument about the grounds for appeal by the prior plaintiffs continued on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance cited above is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiff stated at the trial that “40,374,164 won,” which is the corresponding amount of the application for amendment of the purport of the claim as of May 24, 2016, is erroneous and correct as it is KRW 56,941,165 won (see, e.g., the reference document as of June 7, 2016 and the application for amendment of the purport of the claim as of January 24, 2017).