logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.11.15 2018나2012818
임금
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

[Attachment 3] The "Defendant" of the list of the total amount cited shall be stated respectively.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as to the plaintiffs and the defendants among the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the case being resolved or added as provided in paragraph (2). Thus, it is identical to that of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The part of the judgment of the first instance is partially dismissed as follows, following the reduction of the plaintiffs' claims by this court and the death of the net CU during the course of the lawsuit in this case by Defendant EY, EZ, FA, and FB.

1) The judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 1), [Attached Form 2], and [Attached Form 2] of this judgment (attached Form 1), and the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 3), and [Attached Form 4] shall be changed to the judgment (attached Form 3), respectively. 2) Part of the basic facts (attached Form 2, 15-16) of this judgment (attached Form 2) shall be changed to the following:

1) The remainder of the Defendants except Defendant EY, EZ, FA, and FB and the “FC” operated by the network CU is operated by the company A (hereinafter “A”) (attached Form 5). The “factory” in the reorganization sheet is operated by each factory subcontractor as indicated in the “A” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant EY, EZ, FA, and FB,” the remainder of the Defendants except for Defendant EY, EZ, FA, and FB, and the networkU are collectively referred to as “instant subcontractor”). As the net CU died on May 28, 2017 during the instant lawsuit, the Defendant EY, EZ, FA, and FB succeeded to the property of the network CU. 17, 31, 16, 17, 17, 21, 217, 21, 71, 80, 19, 10, 310, 410, 510, 510, 510, 105, 10

4) Since the Plaintiffs’ assertion that holiday work exceeding one week 40 hours was withdrawn in the first instance trial, the part of the first instance judgment’s “Fourth, or duplicate recognition of additional premium,” and the part of the 7th class 13-16 class 6-8 class 8, the 8th class 18-19 class 7 class 7 to 88 class 19, respectively.

arrow