(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나14878

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) 대전지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나14878

노임 등

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the above wages to the Plaintiff, since he/she was employed by the Defendant for 10,000 won per day from April 15, 2013 to April 22, 2013, which the Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendant for 7 days from April 15, 2013 to April 22, 2013.

As to this, the defendant contracted the defendant's house repair work to C, and the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is the person employed by C.

The testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial, which seems to be consistent with the fact that the defendant employed the plaintiff or agreed to pay his wages directly to the plaintiff, is difficult to believe, and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial is not sufficient to recognize only the entries of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the testimony of the witness D of the party trial, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence 6's partial descriptions, Eul evidence 1-3 (including paper numbers), and witness Eul's testimony, the following circumstances, i.e., in performing the defendant's house repair work, Eul directly s including the plaintiff, and conducted the work, and Eul prepared a detailed work site for the entire house repair work, and the plaintiff was paid 20,000 won from the defendant on April 18, 2013, ② the plaintiff was also issued c with the second day wage from the defendant, and the defendant was not the plaintiff, and the settlement of the whole construction cost, including that with respect to the parts of the person Eul's witness Eul, after the completion of the work, was conducted only between the defendant and Eul, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was employed or agreed directly to pay the plaintiff's wages. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiff is without merit.

B. If the Defendant again awarded a contract to C for the house repair work, the Plaintiff’s wages are paid to C as his employee.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.13 2016나39390

-광주지방법원 2021.04.30 2020나66830

-서울동부지방법원 2017.05.10 2016나3227

-수원지방법원 2015.09.17 2014나36389

-서울동부지방법원 2015.12.11 2015나1989