logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2011.05.19 2010나11584
임금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. An objection to the trial;

Reasons

1. As to the main claim

A. The facts below the facts acknowledged do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

1) From February 1, 2007, Plaintiff A was to receive wages of KRW 1,00,000 each month from July 1, 2007, and Plaintiff B was to work for the Defendant Company, and Plaintiff B retired from the Defendant Company on May 31, 2008, and Plaintiff B retired from the Defendant Company on May 31, 2009, respectively. 2) The Defendant Company did not pay Plaintiff A wages of KRW 9,000,000 for nine months from September 2007 to May 2008, and KRW 7,00,000 for seven months from November 1, 2008 to May 2009 to May 31, 2009.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff A the unpaid wages of KRW 9,00,000 and its 14th day after the retirement date of the plaintiff A, and the above unpaid wages of KRW 7,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act from June 15, 2009 to the day after the 14th day after the retirement date of the plaintiff B, and from June 15, 2009 to the day of full payment.

C. The defendant company's assertion and judgment that the defendant company paid 5,00,000 won to the plaintiffs as wages on January 10, 2008. Thus, the defendant company is obligated to pay only the amount calculated by deducting 5,00,000 won from each of the accrued wages claimed by the plaintiffs.

The statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 are insufficient to admit the above assertion of the defendant company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion of the defendant company is without merit.

2. As to the counterclaim

A. The defendant company asserted that the defendant company managed funds provided by the defendant company on behalf of the defendant company in the course of performing the defendant company's work at each promotion level C during the above service period. The defendant company managed funds provided by the defendant company on January 2, 2007 to March 3, 2007, May 2007, and January 2008 to the plaintiffs for five months in total.

arrow