beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she worked as an instructor at a private teaching institute operated by the Defendant from August 17, 2004 to May 20, 201. Of the wages, the Plaintiff failed to receive KRW 5,100,000,000,000 from January 8, 2009, ② KRW 800,000,000,000 for August 2009, ③ KRW 700,000 for October 7, 2009, ⑤ KRW 700,000 for December 7, 2009, ② KRW 60,000 for January 60, 201, and KRW 80,000 for January 1, 201.
Since then, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,529,000,000,000 from the Defendant in the course of genuine investigation into the case, with the Defendant’s money and valuables unpaid to the Korea Employment and Labor Agency of the Central and Medium Enterprise, as the sum of KRW 1,529,00,00,00, in the course of genuine investigation into the case.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 3,571,00 (=5.1 million - 1,529,000) and the delay damages.
2. Although the Plaintiff is asserting some different arguments regarding the period of his/her service at a driving school operated by the Defendant, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff served as an instructor at a driving school operated by the Defendant from September 2009 to May 19, 201.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4's overall purport of arguments, i.e., ① after receiving KRW 800,000 from the defendant to the plaintiff's bank account on February 1, 2011, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to enter the purport that the above remittance amount is wages for December 2, 2010 and stated "12 months" in the above account passbook. ② The plaintiff transferred 70,000 won to the above account from March 2, 2011 to June 2, 2011, and received KRW 10,000 won in cash from the defendant on September 14, 2012, and thereby, the plaintiff could not be deemed to have received wages from the defendant to the true local government office on March 24, 2011, and three hundred million won in cash from January 1, 201 to May 11, 2014 to the true local government office on March 24, 2014.