beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.10.18 2016가단16541

퇴직금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,045,370 as well as 20% per annum from July 4, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1.The following facts of recognition may be recognized either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4, the results of commission to send documents to the Incheon District Court, and the purport of all pleadings:

The plaintiff is a worker who had worked in the defendant company from January 1, 2002 to June 19, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff received retirement allowances of KRW 44,962,230 from the Defendant, respectively, on January 5, 2015, KRW 8,037,860, and KRW 1,879,000 on September 4, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, in relation to the fact that Nonparty C, the actual representative of the Defendant Company, did not pay KRW 35,045,370 of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance, Nonparty C was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million on May 12, 2017 as the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits (No. 2016 High Court Decision 201Da3478), and the said judgment was finalized on May 20, 2017.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act from July 4, 2015 to the date of full payment, 14 days after the retirement of the Defendant Company, barring special circumstances.

3. The defendant's defenses, etc. asserted that the defendant paid a retirement allowance separate from the monthly wage through a retirement allowance installment payment agreement with respect to the retirement allowance corresponding to the period from January 1, 2002 to January 31, 207, and from December 16, 2008 to January 1, 2012. However, the defendant's defenses are insufficient to acknowledge the above facts only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and there is no other evidence to support them. Thus, the defendant's defenses are without merit.

Furthermore, the defendant raised a defense that the extinctive prescription has expired since the retirement allowance corresponding to the period from January 1, 2002 to January 31, 2007, from December 16, 2008 to January 1, 2012, from January 31, 2007, and the retirement allowance corresponding to the period from January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2012, was filed three years from January 31, 2007 and January 1, 2012.