임금
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 62,332,018 won and its interest rate of 20% per annum from December 16, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
1. In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that the plaintiff was employed as a regular manager of the business planning team at the defendant company from February 1, 2015 to November 30, 2019, the plaintiff was not paid the total amount of 62,332,018 won (the total amount of wages of 5,283,305 won in June 2019, the total of 34,450,05 won in wages of 5,83,340 won in July 2019 through November 11, 2019, and retirement allowances of 27,82,013 won in retirement allowances of 34,450,05 won in total, and retirement allowances of 27,82,013 won in total) from the defendant company, barring special circumstances. According to the above acknowledged facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the same amount as the order to the plaintiff.
2. As to this, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff’s working period, wages, and retirement allowances were unpaid. However, since around April 2019, the Plaintiff operated another company (E and the former F) with C, D, etc., and conducted business activities by using information from the customer information of the Defendant company, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay wages to the Defendant company. The Plaintiff, in collusion with D, G from June 2019, removed, copied, or modified the KIKO operating program (H) developed by the Defendant company without permission, and then caused enormous damage to the Defendant company by selling the KIKO by placing it on board and selling it in the KIKO, etc. on or around April 2020, the Plaintiff filed two criminal complaints against the Plaintiff, such as occupational embezzlement, etc., and around September 2020, a violation of the Copyright Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the result of the complaint is different.
However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s tort as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Even if the Plaintiff’s tort was partially recognized and the damages claim occurred due to the Plaintiff’s tort, according to the main text of Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act, wages are paid in full to the employee in currency, so it is in principle that the employer cannot offset the employee’s wage claim against the employee’s wage claim. This is an economic and social subordinate relationship.