beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The defendant operates D, a manufacturer company of cosmetics, in Pakistan-si.
B. On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written employment contract with a period of work from June 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, under which the Plaintiff would have to work as a head of department in D and pay monthly pay KRW 3,076,930.
C. On July 26, 2019, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 50,00,00 for a fine of KRW 1,076,930 for November 1, 2018, and the said summary order became final and conclusive on August 10, 2019, to the Plaintiff, in the case of violation of the Labor Standards Act (No. 14 days from the date of retirement), in which “the Plaintiff was working at the Defendant’s workplace.” The Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 5,940,470 for a total of KRW 3,076,930 for December 2018, and KRW 1,786,610 for January 20, 2019 for a total of KRW 5,940,470 for a crime.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 5,940,470,000, barring any special circumstance.
B. 1) The summary of the defendant's assertion 1) The defendant is merely preparing a form of employment contract for individual rehabilitation, and there is no fact that the plaintiff has entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff or has been provided with labor from the plaintiff. 2) As long as the authenticity of the disposition document is recognized, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intention by the contents, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents of the contract can be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2169, Jun. 26, 1990). B) The defendant does not dispute the facts that the labor contract (No. 1) was entered into, and therefore, it is recognized that the authenticity of the above employment contract was established.