2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is an employee employed by the Defendant who runs a construction-related company, etc. and provided labor, such as driving, from December 3, 2013 to December 14 of the same month.

B. On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the total amount of KRW 839,970,970 for unpaid wages, etc. and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “instant wage, etc.”). On July 7, 2014, the instant court’s decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”) became final and conclusive on July 25, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. From July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion was enforced with a small-sum substitute payment scheme under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act. Although the Plaintiff has obtained the enforcement title by obtaining the instant recommendation decision prior to the enforcement of the said system, the Plaintiff still has no legal interest in securing the enforcement title by filing a lawsuit again in order to receive substantive remedy through the application of the instant small-sum substitute payment scheme.

In addition, since res judicata is not recognized for a final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, there is a legal interest to obtain a new decision of res judicata beyond an unstable legal status for the future stable compulsory execution. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted.

3. In light of the following circumstances, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not recognize the benefit of protection of rights, even in consideration of all the Plaintiff’s claims.

In case where a party who received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the lawsuit, in principle, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, the ten-year period of extinctive prescription