급여 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts: (a) the Defendant, a person engaged in electrical construction business, received and executed the electrical construction of F Schools in K and E in 201; (b) the mental care center located in G in Yangju in 2012; (c) the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Multi-household Housing; and (d) the electrical construction of the J Building in
From October 5, 2011, the Plaintiff, as employed by the Defendant, was in charge of the management of personnel and the purchase of materials at each site. However, due to the lack of funds from the Defendant, the Plaintiff purchased and used materials at the site, and requested the Defendant to pay the funds to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 8-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4, 5, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) From October 5, 201 to December 25, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 3,300,00 per month from the Defendant, and did not receive benefits. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 48,40,00 and delay damages. 2) The Plaintiff spent KRW 28,982,490 for material costs while working at the Defendant’s construction site. In addition, the amount that the Defendant paid as a substitute for the wage and material cost and the amount that the Defendant paid as a substitute for the Defendant is KRW 19,33,750 if the Plaintiff combined loans with the amount that the Defendant paid as a substitute for the wage and material cost.
However, since the Defendant paid only KRW 46,400,00 to the Plaintiff, it is necessary to further pay the difference between KRW 1,916,230 (28,982,490 +19,33,750 + KRW 19,33,750-46,400,000, and KRW 10,00 due to the Plaintiff’s mistake in calculation) and delay damages.
3. Determination of wages
A. On the other hand, the Plaintiff alleged that he would receive benefits of KRW 3,300,000 per month, and the Defendant argued that he would pay benefits of KRW 2,30,000 per month.
It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff a monthly salary of 3.3 million won only with the descriptions of health class Nos. 3, 1, 9, 10, 11, and 13-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's salary is the defendant.