(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.02.02 2017노6831 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2018.02.02 2017노6831

근로기준법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The Defendant entered into a wage contract with D and E as an individual entrepreneur, and did not enter into a labor contract with them, which is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

② In addition, even if D/E is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, there is no obligation to give advance notice of dismissal or pay advance notice of dismissal in accordance with the proviso to Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 4 and 5 and 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Labor Standards Act, as it causes enormous impediment to Defendant Company’s business by embezzlement of public funds of C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

2. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion that D and E is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized as a worker D and E.

(1) The defendant prepares each labor contract in entering into a contract with D and E, each of which is specified as the user by the defendant company, D and E as the worker, and the defendant company pays D and E wages to D and E on a monthly basis, and the monthly wage includes various allowances (such as extension, night, holiday work) and annual allowances.

“Working Hours” and “Working Hours: 8 hours a day (excluding break time)” are also indicated (see, e.g., investigation records 21,69, 73 pages). The Defendant asserts that the Defendant only used the Defendant Company’s form of labor contract while entering into a supply contract with D and E labor.

However, with respect to the circumstances in which the Defendant used the form of the Defendant Company’s labor contract, the Defendant entered into the contract in the investigative agency as well as other employees in accordance with the form of the labor contract, as well as D and E.

After statement (see 15, 55 of investigation records), D and E in the case of a party.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2017.06.13 2017고정74

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.03 2016노418

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.11.08 2018고정132

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.11.22 2018고정103

-서울서부지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노1701