beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 53,411,160 as well as 6% per annum from November 30, 2005 to June 4, 2020, from the next day.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant paid 53,41,160 won to the above worker on Nov. 30, 2005 because the defendant failed to pay a total of 76,874,510 won of wages and retirement allowances, etc. of the above worker due to bad management, while he worked as an employee belonging to the defendant for the air-conditioning and cooling equipment construction business, and all of the facts, B, C, D, E, E, F, G, H, H, and I were retired on May 9, 2005.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay legal interest or delay damages to the plaintiff claiming subrogation under Article 8 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act at the rate of 53,411,160 won for indemnity and 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 30, 2005 to June 4, 2020, which is the service date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed, as the company, which was closed on December 2, 2013, loses its party capacity.
According to the evidence No. 4, the defendant, on December 1, 2010, ordered dissolution pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and on December 3, 2013, can be recognized that the registration for the completion of liquidation was completed.
However, even if the completion of liquidation is registered for a juristic person, if it is not deemed to have been completed, it shall be deemed to be a party to the liquidation juristic person.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da3408 delivered on April 22, 1997, etc.). In this case, the defendant has a liquidation work for the repayment of the above amount of reimbursement against the plaintiff, so the defendant's ability to stand within the scope of the purpose of liquidation.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and acceptable.