beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,506,931 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from October 15, 2019 to February 18, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the part of recognition and the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Gap evidence, the plaintiff provided labor under employment of the rehabilitation debtor corporation B (hereinafter “ rehabilitation company”) around May 1, 2017 and retired on September 30, 2019. The plaintiff did not receive a total of KRW 33,506,931,000,000 wages and retirement allowances. The rehabilitation company was ordered to commence rehabilitation proceedings with the Daegu District Court 2017hap126, August 4, 2017. The defendant was appointed as the administrator of the rehabilitation company, and the rehabilitation company was authorized by the rehabilitation plan on December 19, 2017.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 33,506,931 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 15, 2019 to February 18, 2020, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
B. The part dismissing part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from August 5, 2017 following the commencement order of rehabilitation to the retirement of the rehabilitation company. However, the Plaintiff’s unpaid wage and retirement allowance claims are claims arising from delay in performing the obligation to pay wages, etc. to the Plaintiff after the commencement order of rehabilitation procedures. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay seeking payment in excess of the above recognized portion is rejected.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.