logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.08.28 2019나50618
임금
Text

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid wages of KRW 5,353,30 and KRW 1,552,800 for the advance notice of dismissal. The court of first instance accepted the unpaid wages claim in full and dismissed the request for advance notice of dismissal.

The scope of this Court's adjudication is limited to the claim for unpaid wages, since only the defendants appealed.

2. Basic facts

A. The Defendants jointly operated an humanitarian restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name of “E” on the d and 2nd floor of the Geum-gu, Busan (U.S.).

B. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Defendant B by setting wages of KRW 1,600,000 per month and allowing the said restaurant to work as a cook. From July 1, 2017 to November 12 of the same year, the Plaintiff served in the said restaurant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the Plaintiff unpaid wages of KRW 5,353,330 (=1,540,000 for August 8, 2017, KRW 1,600,000 for September 1, 2017, and KRW 613,30 for November 2017) that the Defendants asserted that they were not paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1,600,00 for October 1, 2017).

B. Determination 1 on the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendants asserted that all wages were paid in cash to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendants prepared a deposit certificate with the purport that the Plaintiff received KRW 1,60,000 in cash as of August 15, 2017, September 15, 2017, and October 15, 2017, respectively (hereinafter “written deposit certificate”).

3. On the other hand, however, the above evidence and the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 14 reveal the purport of the whole pleadings.

arrow