logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단109765
임금
Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2010, the Defendant implemented the “near guard” system in the Defendant’s elementary school pursuant to the operation plan for the prevention and eradicating of school violence (students; hereinafter “school guardian”).

B. From March 1, 201 to February 28, 2013, Plaintiff A received 30,000 won per day as activity expenses (or KRW 35,00 per day from October 2013 in the case of Plaintiff A) from March 1, 2011 to February 28, 2013, and from October 4, 2010 to October 29, 2012 from the H elementary school located under the Defendant’s jurisdiction, who was commissioned as a volunteer officer of the H elementary school located under the Defendant’s jurisdiction, and was paid as KRW 30,00 per day as activity expenses.

C. G died on July 10, 2013, and the wife, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D, and Plaintiff E inherited the deceased’s property.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiffs A and G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs A and G”) were employed as a guardian of learning for each of the above schools, and worked at 8:00 p.m. prior to 4:00 p.m. before each school principal’s direction and supervision, and continued to perform activities such as students, etc., and traffic safety guidance, traffic safety guidance, patrol inside and outside school, school violence guidance, protection of victim students, etc., and continued to perform the above tasks during the vacation period except Sundays and holidays.

This is a case where a guardian provides labor to the defendant in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages, notwithstanding the name of "service personnel".

Therefore, the defendant as an employer shall be the plaintiff as an employee equivalent to the difference between the minimum wage and the actual wage paid, annual paid leave allowance, and annual paid leave allowance.

arrow