beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.01.19 2016가단37879

손해배상(기)

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

The Plaintiff’s assertion of the claim for damages relating to unpaid wages is reappointed to the Defendant Corporation through the process of the dismissal from reappointment and the revocation judgment. The Defendant Corporation applied the salary class 28 to the Plaintiff after reinstatement. Since the revised public official salary regulations were not applied, the Defendant Corporation is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above wage difference on the ground of tort.

Judgment

In regard to liability for damages caused by a tort, Article 763 of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis to the scope, method, etc. of liability for damages related to nonperformance under Articles 393 and 394 of the Civil Act, in light of the fact that Article 395 of the Civil Act and Article 397 of the Civil Act, which provide for the special provisions on compensatory damages in the event of delay in performance of obligation, do not apply mutatis mutandis to the liability for damages caused by nonperformance, it is difficult to deem that the party is liable for tort, except for forced performance or non-performance of obligation.

However, if the defendant corporation erred by applying the Plaintiff’s salary grade or remuneration provision, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is merely a partial payment of wages, and thus, it has failed to perform its original payment based on the contract. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for tort on the ground that the defendant corporation partly failed to pay wages, in addition to seeking partial payment of wages or taking responsibility for nonperformance.

The plaintiff filed a claim for damages related to unpaid research expenses without the consent of the majority of the professors who have interests in the provision on the payment of research expenses which the defendant corporation has the nature of the rules of employment, thereby reducing the plaintiff's research expenses. This is an unlawful act.