logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.10.13 2020나30109
임금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings:

On December 6, 2018, in the case of violation of the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2018Da1287 of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, the Defendant was found guilty of criminal facts and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,00 against the Defendant on December 6, 2018.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed (this Court 2018No2329), but the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on November 7, 2019 and became final and conclusive after the final judgment became final and conclusive.

Among the above appellate judgments, the judgment on the defendant's defense is as follows.

The defendant, the defendant, the defendant, the defendant, after entering the public notice room of the defendant's operation, requested several times to leave the room. However, the plaintiff provided a room free of charge on the ground that the plaintiff did not have any place to leave the room, and the plaintiff merely assisted the business of the public notice room, and the defendant did not employ the plaintiff as an employee.

The judgment of the appellate court in the case of ‘The plaintiff made a consistent and very detailed statement from the investigative agency about the background of the plaintiff's work, the contents of the work, the working conditions, the working hours, etc. in the public notice room operated by the defendant. The plaintiff's statements of ‘E' who had worked as the full-time officer of the plaintiff are also recognized in conformity with the above statements. ①The defendant also recognized the fact that the plaintiff had worked as a full-time officer in the investigative agency, ①The defendant continued to work in the investigative agency from January 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016 and from January 1, 2017 to October 18, 2017.

arrow