logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.03.21 2017나8270
임금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Reasons

1. Determination as to claim for payment of wages

A. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a labor contract with the Defendant on the operation of shuttle buses by students of C secondary and high schools; (b) concluded an employment contract with the Defendant on the following terms; and (c) performed driving duties by being employed by the Defendant from September 24, 2013 to November 4, 2013, the Defendant did not pay the total amount of wages in arrears KRW 1,422,00 as shown in the attached Form; and (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the wages in arrears and the delay damages

Basic duties: 2 times from 07:30 to 15: From 15:30 to 2, 22:00 to 5 times in total for the operation of a bus with low-income bracket (excluding weekends): Operation fees per month for each basic service (operation of a bus with low-income bracket) of 100,000 won: At the end of 10% of the bus with 50,000 won: holiday work allowances of 50,000 won: A holiday work allowance of 10%;

B. Determination 1) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in this court’s evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 3, the defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as the violation of the Labor Standards Act that the plaintiff did not deliver a document stating working conditions to the plaintiff when entering into an employment contract with the plaintiff, and the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 50,000 as the Daegu District Court racing support 2014Da2974, and it is recognized that the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time.2) However, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone alone was concluded a labor contract with the contents as alleged by the plaintiff, or that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the labor inspector of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office in the port of port shall violate the Labor Standards Act as follows.

arrow