beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 741,422 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from July 14, 2015 to April 20, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant and C’s office-general hospital operation 1) C had operated the so-called “office-general hospital” in the name of medical personnel even though the Evalescent in Daegu-gu D is not a medical personnel. 2) Defendant has operated the so-called “office-general hospital” in the name of medical personnel.
8. 16. Permission C to carry on the business of the above hospital in the name of the defendant, and the defendant became the nominal owner of the above hospital.
B. The Plaintiff’s work period and retirement allowance were served as a nurse of the instant hospital from July 26, 2010 to June 23, 2014, and the Plaintiff was not paid 8,125,540 won of retirement allowance (=10,125,540 won of retirement allowance calculated on the basis of the above work period - the principal amount of retirement allowance received from C) even after the lapse of 14 days from the above retirement date.
C. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 731,935 as part of the retirement allowances unpaid from the Seo-gu District Court’s Seo-Support F Auction Case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 6, and the court's commission of document delivery to the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office
2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is an operator of the instant hospital, and the Defendant is obligated to pay 7,393,605 won of unpaid retirement allowances and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 9, 2014 to the date of full payment, which the Plaintiff seeks, unless there are special circumstances to the Plaintiff.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that the instant hospital is not the actual operator from August 16, 2012, that even though the head of the instant hospital was externally employed by C, it was merely an intention to receive monthly wages. Since the actual employer is C in the relationship with the Plaintiff that was the employee of the instant hospital, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiff.