임금 등
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 29,698,164 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from March 28, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff served as an employee of the defendant company from May 1, 2013 to March 13, 2015, and the total amount of wages of KRW 24,287,481 and retirement allowances of KRW 5,410,683 from July 1, 2014 to March 3, 2015 were not paid by the defendant company. The plaintiff filed a petition with the Seoul Regional Labor Agency for the overdue payment of the above wages, etc., and the labor inspector prepared a written confirmation of the employer's payment of overdue wages, etc. (Evidence No. 1) after confirmation with the representative of the plaintiff company and the defendant company.
According to the above facts, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff wages, etc. 29,698,164 won (wages 24,287,481 retirement pay 5,410,693 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 28, 2015 to the date of full payment, pursuant to Article 37(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
2. The defendant company's assertion as to the defendant company's assertion that ① as the representative C of the plaintiff and the defendant company, the plaintiff is not in a worker's relationship with the defendant company, ② paid approximately KRW 21.9 million out of the amount stated in the letter of confirmation of overdue wages, etc., and ③ since the wife D lent 9.33 million to the plaintiff's wife E for daily living, the plaintiff's claim for overdue wages, etc. should be deducted from the plaintiff's claim for overdue wages, etc.
As to the assertion, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. ③ Even if D lends KRW 9.33 billion to E with respect to the above argument, and the Plaintiff and E used the above money for the purpose necessary for daily home affairs, D is against the Plaintiff, etc.