임금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,609,816 as well as 20% per annum from September 2, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff independently operated the Defendant’s elevator maintenance and repair division under the contract with the Defendant from April 201 to February 2014. Of the sales in the above sector, the remaining operating profits derived from deducting taxes and public charges, such as the nominal user fee of KRW 5,00,000, and the four-time insurance premium of workers, were in the form that the Plaintiff brought about. As a matter of business registration and the payment of taxes, the Defendant’s accounting staff (C and Defendant’s representative’s children) was in the process of accounting including the above sector. (2) On February 2014, 2014, the negotiations related to the increase of the nominal user fee were concluded, and the agreement on the said small president was terminated.
As of February 2014, the Plaintiff’s taxes and public charges are 2,352,346 won, and the Defendant’s profits, etc. are 29,962,162 won (i.e., unpaid amount of KRW 9,148,562 + the amount of accrued bonds 20,813,60 won).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5, 6 evidence, Eul 4 to 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the settlement amount of KRW 27,609,816 (=29,962,162-2,352,346) and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff shall be paid 45,00,000 won (=5,00,000 won x 9 months x 9 months (from April to December 2011) ], 45,100,380 won (=1,734,630 won x 26 months (from January 2012 to February 2014)), office rents, and management expenses, etc. for the Plaintiff’s employees (C). Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. However, it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion solely on the ground that the Plaintiff, until December 2011, was liable to pay C wages, and that the Plaintiff paid the nominal user fee from January 201 to January 201, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, the Defendant did not have asserted such as the demand for payment or the deduction of the unpaid amount prior to the instant case.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff.