임금등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.
2...
1. Determination on the part on the claim for wages
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was: (a) even if the Defendant’s place of business was on October, 2012, November, December, 2012, October, 2012, October, 11, November, 2013, November, 11, and December 30, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10,195,000 out of the Defendant’s wages of 18,00,000 for six months; and (b) even if the Defendant was on duty to work for the Navy’s unit on January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff did not receive the said wages of KRW 1,00,000 from the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 8,805,000 (=7,805,000 + KRW 18,000,000 - KRW 10,195,000) for the overdue wages corresponding to the above period.
B. On July 3, 2011, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff, an engineer of telecommunications equipment and facilities, received KRW 100,000 per day from an enterprise of the trade name called “C” under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant enterprise”), if the Defendant requested to do so.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number), it is recognized that the plaintiff worked for the military unit from January 1, 2014 to October 10 of the same month, and the defendant was to work for the military unit from October 2013, Oct. 1, 2013, and the defendant was to work for the ship ordered by Manamn, Co., Ltd. to work for the company of this case for the six months, and that the defendant paid 10,195,00 won to the plaintiff as wages for the six months (the evidence No. 10 against this point is not trust). However, with respect to the plaintiff's business trip for the military unit from January 1, 2014 to October 10 of the same month, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, a claim for overdue wages corresponding to a business trip during the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.
However, the defendant's wages in arrears for the period of work in Mamaman Co., Ltd. shall be the remainder.