임금체불손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Determination as to the claim for wages (1.5 million won)
A. We examine the judgment on the grounds of the claim, and examine the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was from July 2012 to the same year.
8. 8. The defendant's work at the gas station operated by the defendant until July 2, 2012. The defendant has worked for the plaintiff from July 22, 2012 to the same year.
8. Recognizing the fact that wages were not paid until August 8, 2000, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 439,680 and delay damages therefor.
B. On the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the above wage claim had already expired by prescription. As such, the above wage claim is subject to the three-year extinctive prescription in accordance with Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act, and the said wage claim is in progress from the day following the date of the Plaintiff’s last provision of labor at latest. As such, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking payment of unpaid wages on December 9, 2015, which was three years after the lapse of the said period, and thus, the Plaintiff’s wage claim already expired by prescription.
In regard to this, the Plaintiff’s re-appealed to the effect that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted because it notified the Defendant to pay the wages confidential to the Defendant around 2014. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the peremptory notice has no effect of interrupting prescription unless a judicial claim, seizure, provisional seizure, etc. is filed within six months from the date of the peremptory notice. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-appeal has no ground to prove that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case or taken measures for the interruption of extinctive prescription
2. In a case where a property right is infringed due to a tort of another person, in general, the determination of the claim for consolation money (1.5 million won), barring any special circumstance, the mental suffering shall also be deemed to have been restored by the compensation for the property damage, and if the compensation for the property damage alone causes irrecoverable mental damage.