beta
Text
1. Defendant C: (a) KRW 5,355,00 for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party); (b) KRW 3,315,00 for the appointed Party D; and (c) KRW 3,825,00 for the appointed Party E;
Reasons
1. As to the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties were employed by Defendant C, and provided labor at the site of the new KK at Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, by being employed from July 2014 to September 2014. The Plaintiff asserted that the wages as stated in the Disposition No. 1 were not paid, and that the Defendant C led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay 7,140,000 won to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), 5,35,000 won, 3,315,000 won to the Selection Party, 3,825,000 won to the Selection Party E, 7,140,000 won to the Selection Party G, 2,720,000 won to the Selection Party H, 3,400,000 won to the Selection Party I, 3,060,000 won to the Selection Party I, 2,635,000 won to the Selection Party J from October 1, 2014 following the day of payment to February 16, 2016, 5% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the day after the date of payment to the day of full payment.
2. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) asserted that Defendant B had the obligation to pay the wages specified in Section 1 of the Disposition, but Defendant B employed the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) or the designated parties solely on the basis of the descriptions stated in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the Disposition No. 1.
It is insufficient to deem that the payment of wages or joint and several sureties was made, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, the above assertion is without merit.
(1) On April 21, 2015, the date and time when Defendant B opened the business with the trade name “L” as well as on April 21, 2015, and (2) there is no evidence to acknowledge that M, signed by Defendant B’s agent, was legally granted the right of representation from Defendant B on the evidence No. 1.3. If so, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is justified, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is dismissed.