(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.06.09 2019나2028124

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.06.09 2019나2028124

퇴직금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of "a judgment as to whether the plaintiff is a worker" as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine the determination as to whether the plaintiffs are workers, each of the evidence cited earlier, as well as Gap evidence Nos. 1, 43, 47, and 48, and the purport of the whole pleadings, are acknowledged as follows.

In other words, the defendant ordered the plaintiffs to develop education necessary for strengthening the settlement rate even when they do not engage in education and lectures, and assessed the attitude of performing their duties, such as the frequency of lectures and the active response to the request for lectures.

In addition, the business rules of this case also stipulate that "the duties ordered by the head of the business education team or the head of the center" shall be included in the scope of the plaintiffs

[This is compared to the fact that Article 4 subparagraph 4 of the contract for commission of insurance solicitors (No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1) stated the scope of the insurance solicitor's business as "additional business by an application or consent of the insurance solicitor" with respect to the scope of the insurance solicitor's business. The plaintiffs worked at each designated place of the office provided by the defendant, and reported individually to the head of the center having the evaluation authority on the plaintiffs' retirement and vacation

The employee of the Defendant’s Busan Center confirmed and confirmed how the radars under his jurisdiction work in a time without any lectures, and in the process, only one of the radars has three persons (twiter) in which one person can see his personal work, one person answer “I’t we’t we’t see that he can see that he can do so.”

In light of this, the plaintiffs have been considerably bound by working hours and places designated by the defendant.

The defendant is against the plaintiffs.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2021.04.09 2020가단278166

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.15 2013가단192740

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.19 2016가합26179

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.04 2019가단5174794