logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.14 2015가단72858
임금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff (designated parties) and the designated parties, respectively.

Reasons

1. Each fact in the separate sheet of the grounds for the claim is acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as provided by the Labor Standards Act from April 18, 2015 to the date of full payment after 14 days from the date of retirement of 14 days from the date of retirement of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party (appointed party) and each of them, as claimed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

2. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C asserts that Defendant C did not bear an obligation under Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act as it paid all the agreed wages to Defendant B after awarding a contract for construction work to Defendant B.

However, Article 44-2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that "Where a contract has been made two or more times in construction business, a subcontractor who is not a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry fails to pay wages to his/her workers, an immediate upper contractor of a subcontractor shall be jointly and severally liable with the subcontractor to pay wages to workers employed by the subcontractor." The scope of the above joint and several liability is the total amount of wages that the subcontractor is to pay to workers who are not the constructor, and it is reasonable to view that it is not limited to the scope of the

The evidence submitted by Defendant C alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant C paid the amount included in the Plaintiffs’ wage to Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if Defendant C paid the prescribed wage to Defendant B, Defendant B and the appointed party.

arrow