beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. Regarding Plaintiff B, KRW 3,796,826, KRW 10,628,243, and KRW 3,69,369, and this, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff Y, Z, on July 9, 2009, succeeded to the network AD with children of the deceased network AD, respectively.
B. The Plaintiffs and the net AD (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) concluded a contract on the debt collection business with the Defendant or the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “debt collection business contract”), regardless of the name of the contract, regardless of the title of the contract) on each of the first day indicated in the “period of service” list of the retirement allowance calculation table in attached Form 3, and began to work as a debt collection officer. On each of the last day indicated in the same column, the Defendant’s duty as the debt collection officer was terminated.
[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 32-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the plaintiffs are recognized as workers, and whether the defendant's obligation to pay retirement benefits exists
A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiffs are workers in subordinate relationship with the defendant under the direction and supervision of the defendant, and they have retired from office for more than one year, and the defendant is obligated to pay legal retirement allowances to the plaintiffs. 2) The defendant's argument concluded claims collection contracts with claims collection sources including the plaintiffs and did not have a subordinate relationship with the defendant, notwithstanding the terms of the contract for collecting claims and used contracts, the plaintiffs merely performed their duties according to the delegation contracts.
B. Determination 1) Determination of whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be made based on whether a worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace, rather than in the form of a contract. This is likewise applicable to cases where part of the Plaintiffs were registered as a delegated debt collector under the Act on the Use and Protection of Credit Information (amended by Act No. 9617, Apr. 1, 2009).