logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.03.29 2017가단31063
임금
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company operating regular-use passenger transport business in the Gu and America, and the Plaintiffs are the workers who were employed by the Defendant company and retired from office.

B. By the year of 2015, the Defendant paid 15,000 won per day of duty to workers, and paid 25,000 won per day of duty to the vehicle team workers on duty.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 27, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the form of work on duty and the form of work on duty should be evaluated as the extension of their normal work or the quality of their work should be the same as that of their ordinary work, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs the unpaid daily work allowance, the duty allowance, the early retirement allowance, and the unpaid retirement allowance and bonuses based on the aforementioned allowance, as follows:

Plaintiff

A 2,647,95 won, 21,968,310 won, 26,741,60 won, 26,700 won, 605 won, B 10,959,532 won, 2,149,850 won, 13,109,382 won, C 29,127,807 won, 18,43,400 won, 47,561,207 won, D 7,712, 60 won, 3,281,93, 660 won, 60 won, 12,176, 359 won, 260 won, 260 won, 403,503, 1308, 1639, 294, 1639, 1694, 209, 16394, 209, 16394

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' work and early withdrawal are not treated as ordinary work, so it is not necessary to pay wages equivalent to ordinary work without requiring a separate labor contract.

Plaintiff

D/E argues that bonus should be paid on the basis of the total monthly wage as the basic wage was set below the amount of monthly wage, but in light of the provisions of the labor contract, bonus is an agreed allowance, and the consent of the plaintiffs on the form of wage, the argument to pay the difference in bonus is not reasonable.

Plaintiff

C The duty on duty is also reasonable in light of the purpose, content, required time, strength, etc. of the duty.

arrow