beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and provided labor from April 1, 2016 to April 20, 2016, and sought payment of wages of KRW 4,901,676 for the above period. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request because the Plaintiff was not the Defendant’s partner.
2. We examine whether the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s employee, and the facts acknowledged in the judgment in the relevant criminal case, barring any special circumstance, are significant evidence in a civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12603, May 27, 2010). According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 4, as to the facts charged of violating the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant was found guilty on June 23, 2017 as Seoul Southern District Court 2017MaMa246, which declared that the Defendant did not pay wages to the Plaintiff during the above period. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the effect that the Plaintiff was not the Defendant’s employee but the Plaintiff was a partner, but the Seoul Southern District Court 2017No1379, Aug. 30, 2018.
Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s employee, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s partner. There is no other evidence to prove the Defendant
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 4,901,676 won unpaid by the Defendant, which is recognized by the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire pleadings, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from May 5, 2016 to the date of full payment, 14 days after the date when the cause for the payment occurred.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.