The defendant shall pay 4,196,506 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from August 14, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Basic Facts

Plaintiff

A from June 20, 2009 to July 29, 2014, and Plaintiff B from March 27, 2013 to October 12, 2013, respectively, served as a tourism bus engineer at the Defendant Company.

On January 1, 2015, the Plaintiffs were issued by the Head of the Deputy Branch Office of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Agency, respectively. The details of the delayed payment include 12,687,58,589 won, retirement pay 4,111 won, 2,167,00 won, and 2,95,740 won, including other money and valuables 2,586,380 won, and 2,858,540 won, including other money and valuables 272,160 won, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings is asserted by the plaintiff, defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's overdue wages of 18,95,740 won, and 2,858,540 won of the plaintiff's overdue wages of 2,858,540 won, which are stated in the confirmation center of the above overdue

The Defendant Plaintiffs concluded an annual salary contract with the Defendant based on the comprehensive wage system with the amount of KRW 830,000,000, and paid all the wages and retirement allowances accordingly.

Judgment

The employer of the Plaintiffs’ related legal principles, with the exception of retirement allowances, shall, in a conclusion of the employment contract, determine the basic wages of the workers and pay them in addition to the allowances based on them. However, in a case where an employer concludes a wage payment contract under the so-called comprehensive wage system with the purport that the total amount of the allowances is determined as monthly wages or daily wages, or that the amount of the monthly fixed amount is paid as the allowance, without calculating the basic wages in advance, in consideration of the work hours, form and nature of the work, etc., if it is deemed that there is no disadvantage to the workers and that it is justifiable in light of all the circumstances,

[See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66995, 67004, Apr. 28, 2006, etc.] Moreover, the fact that a wage payment contract under the comprehensive wage system ought to have no disadvantage to workers.