(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나6663

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나6663

퇴직금등

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 reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for an additional determination as to the original defendant’s assertion as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff joined the defendant company on June 4, 2001 and continued to work until January 21, 2014. Therefore, the plaintiff's continuous employment period is 4,613 days from June 4, 2001 to January 20, 201, and the retirement pay should be calculated based on it. 2) The plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to work for the defendant company on October 1, 2006, while the defendant company continued to work for a limited period of time from October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006.

As such, the period from June 4, 2001 to September 30, 2006, since the continuous service as a requirement for the recognition of retirement benefits did not take place before September 30, 2006, should be excluded from the continuous service period, which is the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 (including various numbers), and the testimony of witness C of the court of first instance as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff continued to have engaged in a continuous labor relationship with the defendant company from June 4, 201 to January 21, 201, and it is difficult to recognize otherwise even if considering the respective descriptions of Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

Therefore, as asserted by the Plaintiff, the period of continuous employment should be recognized from June 4, 2001 to January 20, 201, and the amount of the retirement allowance that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff should be calculated on the basis of the recognition.

1. The same fact-finding is not binding on the fact-finding in a criminal trial.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.01.30 2019나314412

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.13 2015나14786

-대법원 2012. 10. 25. 선고 2012다41045 판결

-광주지방법원 2018.09.20 2018가합116

-인천지방법원 2016.09.13 2015나12642