logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.04.06 2015가단2695
임금등
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 72,123,774, and its annual 6% from October 20, 2014 to April 6, 2016, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

In fact, the Plaintiff is an employee of the Yangyang, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing consigned and medicinalju, and was on May 1, 1975 and retired on October 5, 2014. The Defendant is the actual operator of the Yangyang Shipbuilding.

On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint with the Defendant on the ground that “the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 399,69,69.69.28 won for three years’ overtime allowance, KRW 20,428,53.36 won for night work allowance, KRW 40,863,784.68 won for holiday work allowance, KRW 7,464,114 for annual paid leave allowance, and KRW 202,514,229.08 won for retirement allowance from March 29, 208 to October 5, 2014.”

The Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff did not pay the extended night work allowances and annual paid leave allowances of KRW 59,513,122 and retirement allowances of KRW 19,818,064 (hereinafter referred to as “wages, etc.”) in total, 79,331,186 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above allowances and retirement allowances”); on August 12, 2015, the said branch issued a business owner’s confirmation letter, such as overdue wages, etc., to the Plaintiff out of the delayed payment amount of the Plaintiff’s wage, etc. claimed by the said Defendant.

In relation to the above criminal complaint on October 23, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 8,000,000 for the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, and thus, the said summary order became final and conclusive as is, as the Defendant did not object to the said summary order, because it did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 59,513,122 for extended and night leave allowances and annual paid leave allowances from September 201 to October 6, 2014.

【In the absence of dispute, there is an issue of recognition, an entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 6, an obvious fact in this court, and an allegation of the purport of the entire pleadings.

arrow