추심금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 5 as “ May 20, 2016” of the judgment of the court of first instance 5 as “ May 9, 2016,” and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance under the main sentence
The plaintiff's assertion C entered into an employment contract with the defendant and provided the defendant with labor for at least 15 hours a week from August 19, 2014 to June 30, 2016.
Defendant is obligated to pay C retirement pay of KRW 2,709,315 (=average wage of KRW 1,450,000 x 682 days / 365 days) and did not pay KRW 780,000 out of the amount of salary of August 2014.
The Plaintiff demanded KRW 1,989,315, which deducts KRW 1,50,00,00 from the aggregate of the above benefits and retirement allowances from KRW 3,489,315 according to the collection order of this case.
(However, the Plaintiff did not expand the purport of the claim). According to the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, the employer is not obliged to pay retirement allowances to workers whose average weekly working hours are less than 15 hours, on an average of four weeks.
According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, and 4-1, 2, 3, and 6-1, 4-2, and 6-1, 4-3 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, and 6 (the same shall apply to the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6-1 of the evidence Nos. 1-2) and the whole pleadings, C may recognize the fact that a labor contract provided to the defendant during the period from August 19, 2014 to June 30, 2016.
However, comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in subparagraph 1-1 and the overall purport of testimony and pleadings by witnesses of the first instance trial, C and the Defendant agreed to work hours less than 60 hours per week (average of less than 15 hours per week) when entering into each labor contract on August 10, 2014, December 23, 2014, and December 23, 2015, and C provided approximately three hours per week to the Defendant from August 19, 2014 to June 30, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is entitled to the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.