(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단38000

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) 광주지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단38000

임금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, on May 2003, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 20,757,891 as stated in the separate retirement allowance calculation sheet, as the Plaintiff did not receive the total of KRW 30,000,000 among the wages between July 201 to June 2012, 201, and thus, the Plaintiff sought payment of the said money.

First, as to the claim for wage claims, it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion only with the statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the whole purport of the statement and pleading of evidence Nos. 2 (the plaintiff first recognized that the seal is affixed by the seal of the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), the plaintiff can recognize the fact that he retired from the defendant company on September 18, 2008 (the plaintiff argued that the intention of retirement is invalid as a non-career declaration under the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the plaintiff worked in the defendant company from July 201 to June 2012 is without merit.

Next, there is no dispute between the parties as to the claim for retirement allowance and the fact that the plaintiff joined the defendant company around May 2003 that the plaintiff joined the defendant company. As seen earlier, the plaintiff was recognized to have retired on September 18, 2008 and the claim for retirement allowance occurred. However, according to Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act, the claim for retirement allowance is extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised for three years. The plaintiff's claim for retirement allowance was extinguished by three years after the lapse of three years from September 18, 2008. Thus, the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-근로기준법 제49조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.04.02 2018나62119

-창원지방법원 2015.07.15 2014가단9086

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.20 2017가단5074456

-광주지방법원 2021.04.07 2020가단531463

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.16 2013가합89100