beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.10.19 2015나17491

임금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,013,124 as well as full payment with respect thereto from August 25, 2012.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff, a company engaged in land plant manufacturing business, etc.

From July 3, 2012 to August 10, 2012, the Plaintiff provided labor and retired from office, and the Defendant was not paid wages of KRW 3,013,124.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the aforementioned wage and its delayed damages as Busan District Court Decision 2013 Ghana57719. On April 9, 2013, the said court decided to recommend performance against the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the said wage of KRW 3,013,124 and the delayed damages therefor. The said decision became final and conclusive on April 27, 2013.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio whether there is a benefit to bring the instant lawsuit to the Plaintiff.

A. The decision on performance recommendation has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when there is no objection by the defendant against it, and the objection is dismissed or withdrawn (see Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). Since the plaintiff can enforce compulsory execution based on the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation established in the same lawsuit as the subject matter of this case, it is a matter of question whether there is no benefit in the lawsuit of this case

B. Because a notarial deed has an executory power, and there is no res judicata effect, there is a benefit to bring an action in the same claim as the contents of the notarial deed in order to obtain a judgment which

(3) Article 18(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that “The former Enforcement Decree of the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20100, May 14, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22010, May 14, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22010, May 14, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22813, May 14, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22813, May 14, 2009).”