(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.15 2015가단34291

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.15 2015가단34291

체불임금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,464,601 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 17, 2015 to September 3, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff served as an internal doctor at C Hospital operated by the Defendant from July 1, 2012 to June 2, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that he did not receive wages and reported the Defendant to the head of the Central Office of Employment and Labor of the Central Office.

C. According to the “business owner’s confirmation document, such as delayed payment,” prepared by the Administrator of the Central and Medium Local Labor Agency as of July 30, 2015, the Defendant’s wages that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff amounted to KRW 40,464,60 in total, 37,203,241, and other money and valuables 3,261,360.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. According to the allegations and the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 40,464,601 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from June 17, 2015 to September 3, 2015, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

Since the Defendant paid retirement allowances in installments to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement allowances is unreasonable, and ② paid in lieu of the Plaintiff the total of KRW 5,430,90,000, such as the 4th insurance premium, income tax, resident tax, etc. to be paid by the Plaintiff, the Defendant may seek the return of the said

Therefore, since the above right to claim the return of unjust enrichment is asserted to offset the plaintiff's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the amount equal to that of the plaintiff's wage claim of this case, it is insufficient to recognize each of the above arguments only by the statement of No. 1 (including the paper number). There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

All of the defendant's arguments are without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017가단105761

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.06 2016가단83137

-수원지방법원 2019.01.24 2018나5574

-수원지방법원 2018.10.18 2017가단17760

-서울동부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단20334