2016Gahap53206 Litigations relating to work

Attached Form 1 shall be as listed in attached Table 1.

A Stock Company

July 25, 2019

September 5, 2019

1. The part of the plaintiff B's claim for confirmation of worker status shall be dismissed.

2. Ascertainment that the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs B, C, and D is the defendant's worker.

3. From August 10, 2016 to the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff C and D with respect to the amount of KRW 50,000,000, out of each of the pertinent money and each of the said money as stated in the attached Table 2, and from January 24, 2019 to the remainder;

(a) with respect to Plaintiff E, F, G, H, and I, 6% per annum until September 5, 2019 and 12% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

B. 15% per annum for the remaining plaintiffs until May 31, 2019, and 12% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

sub-payment.

4. The plaintiffs C and D's remaining claims are dismissed, respectively.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit:

A. The part arising between the plaintiff C, D and the defendant is borne by the above plaintiffs.

B. 1/10 of the portion arising between Plaintiff B, E, F, G, H, I and the Defendant are borne by the above Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant respectively;

C. The part between the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant is assessed against the defendant.

6. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

We confirm that the plaintiffs are workers of the defendant. The defendant will pay to the plaintiffs 15% interest per annum with respect to each of the corresponding amounts and each of the above amounts stated in the "amount of claim" column of attached Table 2, from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) The defendant is a corporation established on August 7, 2002 by the J company (J and the entry of the corporation is omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) that carries on the business of manufacturing and selling motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts by acquiring K company (the trade name was changed gradually to M company, but the trade name was changed to that of M company and the company "A company" at the time of its establishment). The defendant has its head office in Incheon, and aims at designing, manufacturing, assembling, maintaining, selling, financing, service, etc. of various motor vehicle-related machinery, equipment and parts thereof with factories at the Incheon Bupyeong-gu and Changwon-si.

2) The Plaintiffs are employed by in-house subcontractors that entered into a contract for work with the Defendant and worked in the Defendant’s creative plant located in Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si (hereinafter “Defendant Changwon factory”).

As a result, on February 14, 2017, the remaining Plaintiffs, other than Plaintiff B, who were retired from an intra-company subcontractor, have worked in the Defendant Changwon Factory until now.

B. Summary of the defendant's business and plaintiffs' business

1) In the process of the Defendant’s automobile manufacturing, direct production process is carried out in the order of 'cherical frame’ – - seal processing - quality control - ex-factory, etc., and related indirect production process is manufacturing management process and KSD (Packing work) 1.

2) In around 2005, the organization system of Defendant Changwon Factory was composed of ① the chief of the headquarters in charge of overall affairs as the chief of the highest person in charge of production, ② six departments in charge of regular affairs as follows (the vehicle department, Do department, assembly department, processing department, quality control department, production management department), three departments in charge of general affairs as the managing department (the management department, general affairs department, and facility management department), ③ KR operating department directly operated by the Defendant headquarters, ④ parts guarantee department directly managed by the chief of the headquarters, quality control department, and planning department. Each operating department was divided into several units, namely, “number of departments” units, each production department, and the total number of employees in charge of the Defendant Changwon Factory was divided into seven units (the vehicle department, Do department, assembly department, processing department, quality control department, KS operation department, 217 department, 17 department and one of the employees in charge of operation department, and the number of employees in charge of the Defendant Changwon Factory was composed of 17 units and 17 units.

3) The Plaintiffs worked in the production and management division of Defendant Changwon Factory’s production and management division under the control of the in-house subcontractor as shown in attached Table 3. The materials supply and employees were mainly in charge of the distribution of parts or materials required for each process and the distribution of parts or materials to the designated location in advance. In addition, the number of employees in charge of the supply of materials and the distribution of parts or materials to the designated location. A contract between the Defendant and in-house subcontractor

The defendant used a standardized contract to enter into a contract with an in-house subcontractor for a period of not more than one year, and the main contents of the contract that was used before the so-called drama relocation on October 2007 are as follows: "A" means the defendant; "B" means an in-house subcontractor; hereinafter referred to as "the contract document of this case").

Article 2 (Scope of Contract) "A" means contracting the following services to "B" and "B" means providing "A" with such services. On January 1, Article 4 (Calculation and Payment of Contract Costs) 1. Payment of Contract Costs shall be made in accordance with Appendix 3 after the receipt of a detailed statement of contract costs requested by "B" and the internal processing process. [Attachment 1] Calculation of Contract Costs 1. (1) Monthly Contract Costs: Monthly Contract Costs : x/O 2) (2) Monthly Contract Costs per person x (3) Contract Costs per person x (the Contract Costs per person) x (the Contract Costs per person 2) x (the Contract Costs per person / 3) x (the Contract Costs per person / the Contract Costs per person / the 4th x Contract Price) / (the 5th x Contract Price per person / the 5th x Contract Price) / The Contract Costs per person / the rate per person / (the 2) shall be determined in accordance with the operation standards per person /1).

(d) Progress, etc. of related litigation;

1) Around 2005 investigation was conducted with respect to illegal dispatch to the defendant and in-house subcontractor. After that investigation, the representative of the company, P, Q, R, S, S, and T companies who intend to carry on the temporary placement of workers is subject to the permission of the Minister of Labor as prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes. Even in the case of the temporary placement business, even if they are engaged in the temporary placement business, they were employed by the employees to engage in the temporary placement business without the permission of the Minister of Labor by sending them to the defendant creative factory from December 22, 2003 to January 26, 2005. At that time, the defendant representative director was indicted for the violation of the Act on the temporary placement of workers of the temporary placement of the worker of the defendant in-house subcontractor from December 22, 2003 to January 26, 2005 as the crime of violating the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers.

2) On February 16, 2009, the court of first instance rendered a judgment of innocence against the representative of the intra-company subcontractor and U (Seoul District Court Decision 2007 High Court Decision 276). On December 23, 2010, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the first instance and rendered a judgment of conviction against all the Defendants including U (Seoul District Court Decision 2009579). The Supreme Court dismissed the Defendants’ appeal on February 28, 2013 (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do34, hereinafter referred to as “related criminal judgment”).

3) On June 24, 2013, 5 W et al. asserted that the Defendant was employed as the employee of the Defendant pursuant to the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076, Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "former Dispatch Act"), and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of the status of the employee and payment of money.

4) On December 4, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the claim of workers (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Da3781, 4456 (Joint)), the court of appeals dismissed the defendant's appeal on January 21, 2016 (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Da3781, 4456 (Joint)), and the court of appeals dismissed the defendant's appeal on June 10, 2016 (Supreme Court Decision 2016Da10254, 10261 (Joint) and hereinafter referred to as "related civil judgment").

5) On April 13, 2005, the Defendant prepared and submitted a plan to improve employment security by requesting the creative local labor office to submit a plan to improve employment security. The main contents of the plan are ① the direct operation process of the Defendant in relation to production business and the work process of the employees belonging to the intra-company subcontractor by separating workers from the work process, and arranging the work instruction procedure by ordering the work contents through the on-site agent of the intra-company subcontractor, and strengthening the work management and business independence of the contractor by clarifying the responsibility for the management of the facilities and equipment of the intra-company subcontractor, ② the on-site agent of the intra-company subcontractor in relation to the material supply and packing business, and ensuring independence in the labor management by designating the on-site agent of the intra-company subcontractor in relation to the material supply and packing business.

6) The defendant started to reflect the improvement from July 1, 2005 to work, and around October 2007, the defendant finished the work of separating the direct operation process of the defendant and the work process of the employees of the intra-company subcontractor from the work process of the employees belonging to the company (hereinafter referred to as “the above work”) to rearrange the workers (hereinafter referred to as “redisposition of the worker in 2007”).

E. Relevant statutes

The provisions of the former Dispatch Act applicable to this case are as shown in attached Form 4.

[Ground of Fact recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 85 through 116 (including a Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 13, Eul evidence 16, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Plaintiffs were dispatched to Defendant Changwon Factory as an employee of an in-house subcontractor who entered into a contract with the Defendant, and worked for the Defendant. This constitutes a worker dispatch relationship under Article 2 of the former Dispatch Act. Since the Defendant, a user company, used the Plaintiffs more than two years, the direct employment relationship was formed between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs on the day following the expiry of the continuous employment period of two years pursuant to the main sentence of Article 6(3) of the former Dispatch Act (hereinafter “Rules”). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek confirmation of the status of the employee against the Defendant, an employer.

2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the amount calculated by deducting the wages and retirement allowances received from the intra-company subcontractor from the deadline for request of this case (hereinafter referred to as “wages difference”) from the wages for labor provided as workers belonging to the Defendant from August 2013 to July 2016, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “period for request of this case”).

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) On the basis of the conclusion of a lawful contract with an independent intra-company subcontractor, the Defendant entered into a lawful contract, and accordingly, received the agreed contract work from each intra-company subcontractor or its employees at the Defendant Changwon Factory in accordance with the characteristics of the Defendant’s production process. The Defendant did not command and order the Plaintiffs’ performance of their duties. In particular, the indirect production process, which the Plaintiffs received, is clearly distinguishable from the work and work contents of directly manufacturing automobiles, and as the intra-company subcontractor independently performs specific duties, the employees belonging to the in-house subcontractor and the employees belonging to the Defendant did not jointly work by forming a single work group. Accordingly, there is no relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

2) Even if the provision on deeming employment is applied and the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference of wages to the Plaintiffs, the provision on deeming employment does not apply to the Plaintiffs, as it is a wage item that is included in the shift work, and thus, it does not apply to the Plaintiffs. ② The Plaintiffs cannot claim an additional allowance based on the hours of extension, holiday, and night work worked at an intra-company subcontractor, and ③ monthly and annual allowance is paid in a case where the pertinent monthly and annual wage is not used, and thus, it cannot be claimed solely on the basis that the employment relationship is recognized.

(4) The total amount of retirement benefits received by the Plaintiffs from the intra-company subcontractor should be deducted from the claimed amount.

3. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the part of the Plaintiff B’s claim for confirmation of worker status

In a lawsuit for confirmation, the subject of confirmation is the current rights or legal relations, and barring any special circumstance, verification of the existence of past rights or legal relations is not recognized. Moreover, even in a case where the labor contract between the Plaintiffs as temporary agency workers and the Defendant as the temporary agency workers is established, it is deemed that the Plaintiffs were actually employed by the subcontractor, and the Defendant does not directly employ the Plaintiffs from the beginning, and thus, when the employment contract relationship entered into with the Plaintiffs’ collaborative company terminates, the relationship between the Defendant and the employees and the temporary agency workers is terminated.

According to the statement No. 26 of the evidence No. 26, it is recognized that Plaintiff B retired from the creative plant of X company, which is the Defendant’s intra-company subcontractor, on February 14, 2017. Thus, even if it is recognized that there is a direct employment relationship between Plaintiff B and the Defendant pursuant to the employment deeming provision, the direct employment relationship is terminated due to Plaintiff B’s retirement from the intra-company subcontractor. Therefore, the part of Plaintiff B’s claim for confirmation of the status of an employee is seeking confirmation of the past legal relationship, and it is unlawful as there

4. Determination on the claim for confirmation of worker status

A. Whether to recognize the temporary placement relationship for workers

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where the Plaintiff employer allows a certain employee to perform the work for a third party, whether the legal relation constitutes a temporary placement of workers subject to the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers does not go against the name or form of the contract attached by the party, but rather, whether the third party directly or indirectly gives binding instructions to the relevant employee, such as giving a binding order to the work itself, and whether the relevant employee is actually incorporated into the third party’s business, such as the selection of workers to be placed in the work, or the number of workers, education and training, work and training, rest time, leave, inspection of work attitude, etc., whether the contract purpose is independently exercised, and whether the contract purpose is specifically determined as the performance of limited work, and the work entrusted by the relevant employee is distinct from the work performed by the third party, whether such work is specialized and technical, and whether the Plaintiff employee has an independent business organization or facility necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 200).

See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da106436 Decided February 26, 2015, etc.

2) Recognizing facts

The Plaintiffs continued to work for the Plaintiff’s in-house subcontractor prior to the reorganization in 2007. As such, the Plaintiffs were employed for more than two consecutive years. The following facts are examined as to how to conduct the business prior to the reorganization in 2007, focusing on the business of supplying materials from the production management department that the Plaintiffs worked for the Plaintiffs. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by adding up the evidence and the whole purport of oral arguments:

① The scope of intra-company subcontractor’s business as stipulated in the existing contract agreement of this case is “the work for which the Defendant and the intra-company subcontractor agree separately from the work for the completion of the automobile at the Changwon Factory,” and the scope is not specified.

② In-house subcontractor S companies in charge of distribution and heating in the distribution of materials of the production management department, approximately 50 vehicles and approximately 30 biters were owned by the Defendant, but the Defendant’s workplace was managed by conducting safety inspections on the vehicles and records.

Most of the automobile manufacturing and assembly works in the Defendant Changwon Factory were conducted using a consortium, and indirect production processes and heat did not use a consortium. Workers employed by the Defendant are in charge of checking and importing parts and materials, and employees employed by in-house subcontractor are in charge of collecting and transporting parts and materials. Although workers employed by in-house subcontractor and employees employed by in-house subcontractor did not work together, they performed their duties through a series of process of inspecting and transporting parts and materials, although they did not work together.

④ Workers belonging to an intra-company subcontractor performed simple and repetitive tasks by means of standard work books prepared and distributed in advance by the Defendant, unit work books, etc. In case of a change in production methods, the Defendant changed the above standard work books, unit work books, etc. to the new system, and provided the employees belonging to the Defendant with education or necessary instructions regarding the change in the company’s position and protocol. When new workers are input from the intra-company subcontractor, the Defendant provided education for the basic work performance methods, etc. with a certain period of time and posted them. In the case of the material supply division of production management department, the Defendant provided the material supply department, in accordance with the supplier list, heat work instructions, and distribution manual lines.

(2) If a vacancy occurs or the production volume increases due to the industrial accident, leave, etc. of the employee belonging to the defendant, the defendant requested the intra-company subcontractor to supplement the number of employees and let the worker belonging to the intra-company subcontractor work as a substitute for the vacancy. In such a case, if the defendant's department prepared a plan to fill up the number of employees and submitted it to the defendant's production management department, the production management department shall publish the production opinion in the production management department, and thereafter, the defendant's management department, the planning department, and the head of the headquarters, who is the highest manager of the defendant creative plant, notified the defendant's input department, input department, input process, target, input time, and input period through the process of approving the number of employees.

6. Work starting and ending hours, meal hours, break time, etc. of workers belonging to an intra-company subcontractor all were determined the same as the workers belonging to the defendant. The defendant's production management department shall prepare an annual production plan and establish a monthly production plan in consultation with the defendant's trade union every month, and accordingly extension - night and holiday work is decided. Although intra-company collaborative companies do not participate in decision-making process, employees belonging to an intra-company collaborative company were engaged in extended, night, and holiday work in accordance with the production plan as the workers belonging to the defendant were the same as those belonging to the defendant, and employees belonging to the defendant did not work for the labor union

7. An annual production plan, a holiday leave, a summer leave, etc., was set in advance, and this was equally applied to the employees of an intra-company subcontractor and the employees of the defendant. If an employee of an intra-company subcontractor intends to use early retirement, monthly leave, etc., he/she shall report to the employee of the defendant's workplace and received an application for probation from the employee.

④ Not only the employees belonging to the Defendant but also the employees belonging to the Defendant, prepared the work management system that includes the contents of delivery, the contents of the work arrangement, the contents of the work, the current status of the work, the work hours, etc. for the management of the work hours, etc., and operated and managed the work management system that contains the contents of the work management by means of computer, and prepared the major goals of the work management system that includes the number of departments or positions including the employees belonging to the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company.

9. The Defendant paid the contract amount to the in-house subcontractor in the way of a contract for labor cost, welfare cost, general management cost, profit, etc. calculated by multiplying the contract unit price per working hour by the total working hours.

3) Determination on the labor relations of the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs C and D

In light of the above facts and the evidence and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiffs C and D employed in the intra-company subcontractor and dispatched to the defendant Changwon Factory and received direct command and order from the defendant.

A) The characteristic of the automobile manufacturing business using a consortium that continuously works in the manner of automobile manufacturing is ‘severbity', ‘competiity', and ‘severbiity'. The time and speed of the business, as well as the quantity and the method of the business, depends on the moving speed, etc. of the consortiums designed as a whole. The above simple uniformness and ‘severbiability' are replaced by a considerable part of controlling the speed and working conditions of the consortiums, which are controlled by the direction and order of individual workers, to reduce the need for specific work instructions or orders for the employees who work in the business, while the suspension of the business in some process without suspension is likely to immediately lead to the suspension of the entire automobile manufacturing business, and the organic relationship between the individual workers in the business, such as the suspension of the production process and the entire business, has occurred. Unlike the direct production process, the production process differs not only from the working hours of the company to which the employees belong, but also from the company to which the employees belong, such as the company is directly in charge of the production process and management.

In the case of the distribution business that the Plaintiffs are responsible for the supply of vehicles, the assembly parts, etc. are provided in a timely manner in accordance with the schedule for the production of the contacter who works without interruption. As such, the indirect production process is also conducted in proportion to the production speed and schedule of the contacter, which is the center of the automobile manufacturing business. As a result, the starting and ending time of indirect production, extension, night, and holiday work hours, etc. are bound by the Defendant’s production plan as determined by the Defendant. The work volume and number of inputs were also set in consideration of the operation speed and production volume of the contact mark. As such, the indirect production process is closely and systematically linked to the entire automobile manufacturing business, and the Plaintiffs and the employees belonging to the Defendant, who are the employees of the intra-company subcontractor, were comprised of one work group, and thus, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have practically

B) According to the terms and purpose of the contract of this case, the scope of work performed by the intra-company subcontractor is comprehensively and abstractly described as "work agreed separately between the defendant and the intra-company subcontractor" during the work for completion of the automobile. At the time of conclusion of the contract, there was no separate agreement on specific work or preparation of additional documents in accordance with the agreement. The defendant paid monthly contract cost to the intra-company subcontractor by calculating the monthly contract cost from the first day of the month to the last day, but in light of the monthly contract cost settlement procedure and payment details, it is merely that the contract cost is paid depending on the volume and work hours invested by the worker employed by the intra-company subcontractor, and it is merely a price for the provision of labor, not the completion of work. In light of these circumstances, it is determined that the purpose of the contract is not to specifically limit the scope of work, but to provide the worker employed by the intra-company subcontractor itself, such as the authority to command, order, work conditions, etc., the worker employed by the company or the employer directly instruct the worker employed by the defendant.

Workers belonging to an intra-company subcontractor, including the plaintiffs, set the same time as those of the employees belonging to the defendant, such as working hours, meal hours, rest time, etc., and employees belonging to an intra-company subcontractor work for the same extended and holiday work as those of the employees belonging to the defendant in accordance with the production plan, etc. determined by the defendant in accordance with the production plan. The defendant has management of the workers belonging to an intra-company subcontractor by having employees belonging to an intra-company subcontractor prepare work logs, work logs, etc., and grasp their work situation, personnel status, etc., and had a right of general allocation and change of work rights for employees belonging to the intra-company subcontractor. In addition, the above workers determined the work volume, work method, and work order to be performed by the above workers. Some plaintiffs were promoted to the head of the first employed team as described in attached Table 3, and were in charge of equipment management and safety management, personnel management, distribution, or heat support. However, the head of the intra-company subcontractor's work team directly transferred the workers belonging to the defendant's workplace or the team.

D) The Plaintiffs’ work in charge of the discrimination, expertise, and technological expertise are repeating the same work, and thus neither professional skills nor the relevant employee’s skill nor skill was specially required. With respect to the direct production process, the Plaintiffs’ work force was immediately put in the Defendant’s production process, on the basis of the supplier list, the heating materials list, the heating work instruction, etc., and the Defendant’s work instruction, etc., on the basis of the Defendant’s work instruction, etc., in relation to KR work, if the Defendant’s direct position and chief instructs the method of performing the work, based on the Defendant’s work instruction, etc., such as the supplier list, the heating materials list, the heating work instruction, etc., as to the indirect production process. As such, the Plaintiffs’ work force was not required to have been immediately put in the Defendant’s production process.

E) At the time from December 22, 2003 to January 26, 2005, the criminal judgment related to the relevant criminal judgment and the relevant civil judgment were determined as having been formed in the same form as the relationship between the employees of the Defendant and the intra-company subcontractor with respect to the direct production process, indirect production process (distribution, heat work, and KR work) of the Defendant Changwon Factory. The employees of the intra-company subcontractor employed in the intra-company subcontractor and dispatched them to the work site of the Defendant Changwon Factory, and received orders and orders from the Defendant. Even after the above period, the relationship between the Defendant and the employees of the intra-company was formed in the same form as before the relocation in 2007.

4) Determination on the labor relations of Plaintiffs C and D

The above facts and the evidence Nos. 88 and 93 as follows, which can be known by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the above facts and the evidence No. 88 and evidence No. 93, i.e., the following circumstances, i., the plaintiff C and D belonging to the distribution of materials of the production management department, and were in charge of the distribution, charging, and repair of the whole for the plaintiff C and D in the production management department, and did not carry out the supply and heat of the materials or parts at the site. ② The affairs of the plaintiff C and D are not closely linked to the automobile manufacturing process or the manufacture plan, but are separate from the distribution and heating of the materials for the production management department to which the plaintiffs belong, and it is possible to conclude a separate contract only by specifying the affairs. ③ The plaintiff C and D concluded an employment contract with the internal cooperation company and worked at the defendant creative factory, and were managed by the same method as the workers of the defendant, but it is difficult to view that the defendant was under direct command and order of the plaintiff C and D company.

B. Determination on the status of workers

Pursuant to the employment deeming provision of the former Dispatch Act, the Plaintiffs (excluding Plaintiffs C and D) who provided labor before July 1, 1998, the enforcement date of the former Dispatch Act, deemed that the continuous employment period from July 1, 1998, is calculated, and the two-year period has expired, and the remaining Plaintiffs are deemed to be employed by the Defendant on July 1, 200 following the expiration of the two-year period from the first employment date.

Therefore, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff C and D are deemed to have been employed by the defendant on the date stated in the "Inter-employment Week" column of attached Table 3. The plaintiffs except the plaintiff C and D whose direct employment relationship is not recognized with the inside partner company and the plaintiff B whose employment relationship is terminated after the employment period, are currently the defendant's workers, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation as long as the defendant contests this.

5. Determination on the claim for payment of wages

A. The defendant's duty to pay the difference in wages

1) Where workers of an in-house subcontractor were placed in employment as workers of an in-house subcontractor pursuant to the former Dispatch Act, but the relationship of business contract between the in-house subcontractor and the in-house subcontractor continues to exist, and thus a in-house subcontractor provides labor through the in-house subcontractor, the in-house subcontractor is established between the in-house subcontractor and the in-house subcontractor, and the worker provides the in-house subcontractor with labor in accordance with the direction and order of the in-house subcontractor, while receiving wages from the in-house subcontractor. In this case, the worker may claim for wages from the in-house subcontractor in consideration of the labor

2) However, the wages that a worker received from an intra-company subcontractor for the period eligible for wage claim should be deducted from the wages that the employer has to receive pursuant to the application of Article 538(2) of the Civil Act by analogy. Furthermore, when a worker continues to provide his/her service for a period of not less than one year and retires, the employer has accumulated a part of wages to provide his/her labor when the worker retires from his/her office with basic financial resources, and thus, the worker is paid in lump sum at the time of his/her retirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8333, Mar. 30, 2007). Thus, this is also an intermediate income under Article 538(2) of the Civil Act, which is subject to reimbursement or deduction. Accordingly, the part corresponding to the difference between the employer and the employer’s interim retirement allowance payment period should be the amount corresponding to the difference between the retirement allowance payment period and the employer’s interim retirement allowance payment period.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiffs the difference between the period of request in this case, namely, from August 2013 to July 2016, the amount of wages that the Plaintiffs should receive as the Defendant’s employees, minus the amount of wages and retirement wages paid by the in-house subcontractor during that period.

B. The wage difference that the defendant has to pay

1) If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 3 through 84, and evidence Nos. 119 through 124, the difference between the wage amount the plaintiffs received from the intra-company subcontractor and the wage amount deducted from the retirement amount shall be as stated in the separate sheet No. 2.

2) The Plaintiffs provided labor to the Defendant under the direction and order of the Defendant in the Defendant Changwon Factory during the instant period of request, and the method of determining working hours, time to rest, etc. is the same as that of the Defendant’s employees. As such, in calculating the wages to be paid by the Plaintiffs as the Defendant’s employees for the instant period of request, the Plaintiffs calculated the amount of additional allowances, annual allowances, and class work allowances based on the annual working hours, the number of hours actually worked, and the actual shift work actually performed during the instant period of request as the employees belonging to in-house subcontractor. However, in the case of the month in which the night work allowance is not paid, the amount of the incentive for class work is paid to the Plaintiffs, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs were working alternately in the month in which the night work allowance

A person shall be appointed.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 6% annual interest rate under the Commercial Act from September 5, 2019 to the remainder of the plaintiffs, other than plaintiffs C and D, and 50 million won from August 10, 2016, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the lawsuit of this case, and to pay 12% annual interest rate under the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2501, May 28, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 2501, Jan. 24, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 25175, Sep. 1, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 25148, May 16, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 23788, May 28, 2019).

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff B's claim for confirmation of worker status is dismissed as illegal, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiff C and D are justified within the above scope of recognition, and they are accepted. The plaintiff C and D's remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

presiding judge, highest judge;

Judges Park Shin-young

Judges Gin Jae-ap

1) The term "Krok Down" means the method of exporting parts, not completed, and then assembling and selling them in the local area, and the organization system of the defendant

KD Business means the business of packing parts in units of parts to sell motor vehicle parts separately.

2) If a V employee has worked for the contractual working days during a month, it would become one, and if he/she is unable to work for the contractual working days, the number of contractual working days would be equal to that time.

shall be the number after deduction.

(iii) the number of production per hour;

4) As Plaintiff Y did not work on a alternate basis due to changes in work positions after the week of employment, Plaintiff Y did not claim a work on a alternate basis.

did not.