[급료등청구사건][고집1981민,590]
1. An example rejecting the claim for the payment of the difference in the amount where justifiable grounds exist even if the benefits under the provision of benefits have been paid;
2. In the case of a voluntary retirement from office, dismissal allowances shall not be paid.
1. Even if the Plaintiff received the monthly wage that is much short of the monthly wage pursuant to the wage regulations of the Defendant Company, the fact that the Defendant Company’s management balance of the Defendant Company gets worse, and the Defendant Company’s voluntary consultation and agreement between labor and management as one of the means to live in the company, is reasonable. In this case, the change of the wages by agreement is unnecessary to obtain the recognition of the Commissioner of the Labor Agency pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and the amount of the said salary has been re- modified due to the above agreement, so the Plaintiff cannot claim the difference that the amount of the salary falls short of the amount set forth in the wage regulations due to the above sub-Adjustment.
2. In a case where the defendant's submission of a letter of apology by the plaintiff was accepted and dismissed, the provisions on pre-announcement of dismissal and dismissal allowances under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act are not applied.
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff
Defendant corporation
Seoul Civil History District Court (80 Gohap6046)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,242,800 won with 5% interest per annum from August 7, 1979 to the date of full payment.
Judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration
The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,925,00 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from August 7, 1979 to the full payment.
The fact that the plaintiff joined the defendant company on June 4, 1975 and served as the representative of the general secretary, the director of the division and the chief of the general affairs until the retirement of August 6, 1979 is no dispute between the parties.
The plaintiff asserted that he unilaterally paid his wages during the period when he worked for the defendant company, and did not pay his monthly and annual leave compensation, dismissal allowances, and prescribed retirement allowances as provided by the Labor Standards Act, and thus, he is entitled to claim the difference. Therefore, this paper will first examine it.
(1) Demand for a difference in the rent;
According to the wage rules of the plaintiff company from July 1, 197 to 1976, the plaintiff company's wage of 160,000 won per month and the wage of 20,000 won per month has been set at 10,000 won per month for the above 10,000 won and 10,000 won per month for the above 20,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the company's salary increase by 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the company's salary increase by 20,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the company's salary increase by 10,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the company's salary increase by 10,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 7.
(2) Claim for monthly or annual leave compensation;
The plaintiff asserts that he would be entitled to 30,00 won of monthly paid leave and annual paid leave as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act between June 4, 1975 and August 6, 197 (the above 197th annual paid leave and 2th annual paid leave) during the above period (the above 197th annual paid leave and 4th annual paid leave). Thus, according to the provisions of Articles 47 and 48 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the plaintiff's right to 19th annual paid leave and 7th annual paid leave are 9th annual paid leave and 9th annual paid leave (the above 19th annual paid leave and 19th annual paid leave were 7th annual paid leave and 2th annual paid leave were 9th annual paid leave and 19th annual paid leave were 7th annual paid leave and 3th annual paid leave were 9th annual paid leave and 4th annual paid leave were 9th annual paid leave.
(3) Claim for dismissal allowances
In order to dismiss the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that the defendant company claimed a 30-day ordinary wage on August 6, 1979 without giving the above advance notice of dismissal, and that the plaintiff was dismissed on August 6, 1979. However, if the plaintiff's testimony in Gap's letter of evidence No. 11 (Written Answer) without dispute over the establishment, the defendant company asked the members of the board of directors on March 3, 1979 whether they continue to work or not due to the transfer of management rights and the reorganization of management, and has the members of the board of directors submit a letter of apology in accordance with the direction of the members of the board of directors, the plaintiff who was the chief of the board of directors at the time submitted the letter of resignation on May 6, 197, and submitted the letter of dismissal on August 6, 1979, and notified the defendant of the fact that the above letter of resignation was accepted on August 6, 199, the plaintiff's assertion that the above advance notice of dismissal was not applied to the above prior notice of dismissal or dismissal.
(4) The portion of the retirement claim
As from June 4, 1975 to August 6, 1979, the defendant is obligated to pay at least one-month wages as retirement allowance for the period of four years and two months from June 4, 1975 to August 6, 1979 when the plaintiff worked for the defendant company, and according to the Eul evidence No. 9, where there is no dispute over the establishment, the average wage at the time of retirement of the plaintiff can be recognized as the fact that the amount of monthly wage at the time of retirement is 275,00,00 (275,000 x 4 x 2/12): Provided, That it is clear that the plaintiff claims the amount of KRW 1,145,80, and therefore, it is possible to deduct the amount of KRW 828,00 which the plaintiff received as retirement allowance at the time of retirement, the amount of the retirement allowance shall be 1,145,800,000,000,000 won.
In conclusion, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 317,800 won of the retirement allowance balance and the amount of damages for delay under the civil law from August 20, 1979 to the date of full payment at the rate of 5 percent per annum from August 20, 1979 after the retirement of 14 days after the retirement of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.
Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)