(영문) 부산고등법원 2007. 2. 7. 선고 2006나15465 판결[임금][미간행]
Plaintiff (Attorney Regular Ho-ho, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
January 17, 2007
Ulsan District Court Decision 2005Gahap7692 Decided August 10, 2006
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the designated parties the amount in the total column for the statement of accounts payable in attached Form and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from April 1, 2004 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
1. Quotation of the first instance judgment
The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the argument in the trial of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as to the instant case, the judgment of the court of first instance is identical with that of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. At the time of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff agreed on the lowest level of wages in the subdivision of the Ulsan District Department of the Ulsan District of the National Metal Trade Union in order to share the suffering for the long-term employment stability rather than the temporary wage for the trade union as a result of the existence of serious employment proposals at the time of the instant agreement. However, in the event that a new item is not available, the Plaintiff agreed to increase wages under the pretext of consolation money if it is sufficiently anticipated that the workplace will be lost due to layoff, business closure, etc., and the Defendant prepared for the consecutive closure of business without the will for the new item and concealed the property, and thus, the instant agreement cannot be deemed as significantly lacking rationality.
B. Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 12, 17, and 18-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 19-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 20-1-8, and Eul evidence No. 1-7 and 9 is insufficient to recognize that at the time of the agreement in this case, the defendant agreed to increase wages in consideration of consolation money for workers who lose their workplace when the defendant discontinued his/her business due to the failure to receive a new item, or that the defendant concealed the property without the new item owner's effort to do so and carried out unilateral closure of business. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, if the agreement in this case was reached, it is difficult to expect that new owner of an item should be granted if the agreement was not reached between labor and management, and it is substantially difficult to expect the existing owner of the item to be terminated, and thus, it is impossible to deem the defendant to have made an endeavor to increase wages retroactively due to the lack of the defendant's own ability to do so.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
[Attachment List of Selectioners and Omission of Unpaid Items]
Judges Masung Man (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)