beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.11 2017가단9181

임금 등

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 146,441,277 as well as 5% per annum from February 9, 2017 to May 11, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the parties or may be found in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings. (a)

The defendant is a corporation that runs the real estate development business and golf course development business. On June 7, 2005, the plaintiff became a company of the defendant's affiliated company and has been working for the defendant as the defendant from January 1, 2013.

B. At the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer to the Defendant, both the labor contract relationship between the Plaintiff, Hanwon Construction Co., Ltd. and the Defendant that the Plaintiff had worked in Hanwon Construction Co., Ltd.,

C. From January 1, 2013, the Plaintiff retired without receiving part of the wages and retirement allowances on March 31, 2015 while serving in the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s obligation to pay unpaid wages and retirement allowances (1) the fact that the Defendant did not pay 91,431,880 won to the Plaintiff as stated in the attached Form No. 1,431,880 as the Defendant’s payment of unpaid wages does not conflict between the parties, or that it can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence No. 1 through No. 6. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff unpaid wages of KRW 91

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each statement in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff received a total of KRW 25,161,000 as salary for three months before the date of retirement. The plaintiff's average wage per day calculated according to the above acknowledged facts (=279,566 won ± 25,161,000 won ±90 won ± 90,000 won; hereinafter the same shall apply).

On the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the Plaintiff’s continuous employment period can be acknowledged from September 8, 2008, which was the day following the interim settlement of retirement pay, to March 31, 2015, which was the day of retirement.

The above facts of recognition.