beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The Defendant received KRW 43 million from the Plaintiff on behalf of the said workers, even though the wage for June and July 2014 of the workers who worked at the Plaintiff’s claim for new construction of factory (hereinafter “instant construction”) was KRW 36,662,00,000, on behalf of the said workers.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,38,00 (=43 million -36,662,000) and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 3 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s monthly wage of KRW 15,882,00 for June 2014, and the wage of KRW 20,780,00 for July 15, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s wage of KRW 18,540,810 for June 2014, and KRW 24,753,480 for each of the said workers’ wage on August 14, 2014 can be acknowledged.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,632,290 (i.e., KRW 18,540,810,24,753,480, 15,882,000 - KRW 20,780,000) and damages for delay.
B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the above costs should be deducted from unjust enrichment, since the defendant's judgment on this case's construction site's equipment siren cost, water value, forking tea cost, meals, oil cost, etc. are paid on behalf of the plaintiff.
According to the whole purport of the statement and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 2, it is recognized that the Defendant paid on behalf of the Plaintiff equipment, siren, water value, forking expenses, and food expenses related to the instant construction on behalf of the Plaintiff as listed below, and therefore, it is reasonable to deduct the aggregate of KRW 2,730,095 from the above unjust enrichment.
Although the defendant asserts that the oil cost should be deducted from KRW 409,635, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid the oil cost on behalf of the plaintiff in connection with the instant construction work, and it is otherwise recognized.