beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.05.27 2016나1899

임금

Text

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.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant who is engaged in the mechanical parts manufacturing business, etc., and provided labor, such as parts processing business, from December 9, 2013 to February 3, 2014.

B. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the total amount of KRW 1,485,570 (hereinafter “instant wage, etc.”) of unpaid wages, etc. and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “instant wage, etc.”) with the Busan District Court Decision 2014Da17737, and the said court’s decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”) was finalized on December 2, 2014 on the 19th of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. From July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion was enforced with a small-sum substitute payment scheme under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act. Although the Plaintiff has obtained the enforcement title by obtaining the instant recommendation decision prior to the enforcement of the said system, the Plaintiff still has no legal interest in securing the enforcement title by filing a lawsuit again in order to receive substantive remedy through the application of the instant small-sum substitute payment scheme.

In addition, since res judicata is not recognized for a final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, there is a legal interest to obtain a new decision of res judicata beyond an unstable legal status for the future stable compulsory execution. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted.

3. In light of the following circumstances, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not recognize the benefit of protection of rights, even in consideration of all the Plaintiff’s claims.

In case where a party who received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the lawsuit, in principle, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, the ten-year period of extinctive prescription