logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.01.18 2017나205258
임금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant operates the health extract sales store of the trade name “D” in Seosan City (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

The Plaintiff provided labor in the instant workplace from October 2006 to October 2013, and registered as a disabled person of Grade III with intellectual disability on March 17, 2017.

B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000 from October 2006 to April 2009, KRW 100,000 from May 2009 to October 2009, KRW 150,000 from November 2009 to April 201, KRW 200,000 from May 201 to October 2010, KRW 250,000 from October 201, and KRW 30,000 from May 201 to April 201, and KRW 30,00 from May 201 to October 30, 201, from October 201 to October 30, 205, respectively.

C. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office for the overdue payment, including retirement allowances, and the labor inspector prepared a business owner’s confirmation letter, including the overdue payment that confirms that the Plaintiff had the money and other valuables in arrears (i.e., retirement allowances of KRW 20,208,208,271 (=retirement allowances of KRW 18,124,860).

On February 17, 2017, the Defendant paid wages below the minimum wage amount to the Plaintiff from October 2010 to October 2013 as Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 201Da4958, Oct. 17, 2010, the Defendant did not pay 25,464,955 wages to the Plaintiff within 14 days from the date of retirement without consultation between the parties to the extension of the due date. The Plaintiff did not deliver the document specifying working conditions to the Plaintiff. The amount of retirement pay 2,083,41 won was not paid to the Plaintiff within 14 days from the date of retirement without consultation on extension of the due date. The Defendant committed the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act, violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, and violation of the Minimum Wage Act, which

arrow