임금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, the results of the plaintiff's newspaper and the whole purport of the argument in this court, the plaintiff worked in the beauty art room of the trade name "E" located in the D hotel from August 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016 (hereinafter "E"). The defendant jointly operated the beauty art room of this case with Eul. The plaintiff's monthly salary was KRW 2,50,000, but the plaintiff's monthly salary was KRW 5,000,000 for September and October, 10, 2016, and the plaintiff was paid KRW 2,50,000 from the above unpaid wage as KRW 3 from November 11, 2016.
Therefore, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff 2,50,000 won (=5,000,000 won - 2,500,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 15, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is 14 days after the Plaintiff’s withdrawal date.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,250,000 out of the unpaid wages of KRW 2,50,000, which was paid by C, but it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,250,000 out of the unpaid wages of KRW 1,250,00 on the sole basis of each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-2, 5, and 6-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. On October 12, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the cosmetic was operated by C, and on October 12, 2016, the head of the D Hotel did not work in the cosmetic, and that he did not work in the cosmetic thereafter, and that on November 3, 2016, the payment date was closed on November 3, 2016, and that the Plaintiff did not have a duty to pay ten-month wages to the Plaintiff.
From August 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff worked in the beauty art room of this case and the business owner of the beauty art room of this case during the above service period was a joint business owner with the Defendant and C, as seen earlier. Thus, the Defendant’s work owner on October 2016.