임금 및 퇴직금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. In light of no dispute between the parties to the determination of the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 7 as to the evidence Nos. 1, 7, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant did not pay KRW 50,000,000 and the total amount of KRW 60,613,458, which was paid from September 27, 2009 to September 26, 2012 as wages of the Plaintiff retired after being employed by the Defendant and having retired from office, from office, from December 2010 to September 2012.
As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the unpaid wages, etc. that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff are above the above KRW 60,613,458 and KRW 88,602,740, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned wage and retirement allowance claim KRW 60,613,458 (hereinafter “instant wage and retirement allowance claim”) and damages for delay thereof.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.
A. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is a defense that the Plaintiff’s wage and retirement allowance claim in the instant case had already been extinguished due to the completion of prescription. Thus, the facts that the date of retirement of the Plaintiff, which is the starting point of the statute of limitations for the instant wage and retirement allowance claim, was September 26, 2012, are no dispute between the parties, and the starting point of the statute of limitations is subject to the principle of pleading as the main facts (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da35886, Aug. 25, 1995). The Plaintiff appears in the complaint that the date of retirement of the Plaintiff was September 26, 2012. The Defendant asserted that the date of retirement of the Plaintiff explicitly used the prior confession of the Plaintiff through a preparatory document dated September 1, 2016, thereby establishing a judicial confession as to the facts that the starting point of the statute of limitations for the said wage and retirement allowance claim was September 26, 2012.
Therefore, while the plaintiff revoked the confession at the court below in the trial, there is no evidence to prove that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake.