logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.10.27 2016나32184
임금
Text

1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows.

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff retired after serving as a business employee from the Defendant for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. herb drugs from August 11, 2004 to April 30, 2014.

After withdrawal, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Defendant C’s representative director C in violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

B. The Defendant received a notice from a labor company in around 201 as to the payment of retirement allowances by cash each year, and received a receipt, etc. for the interim payment of retirement allowances from the labor company.

C. On August 1, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared an interim statement of accounts for retirement allowances (Evidence B-1) to the purport that “The period from August 11, 2004 to July 31, 201, which wants to receive retirement allowances in cash upon interim settlement,” and (b) received KRW 27.5 million from August 11, 201 to July 31, 201.

“The receipt (B No. 2-2, hereinafter “instant receipt”) was issued and delivered. D. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s representative director C did not know the exact amount of the retirement allowance that the Defendant had to pay to the Plaintiff in the criminal case filed for a violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc.

It is the same that the full amount of KRW 27.5 million has not been paid, but a certain amount has been paid.

“The C himself/herself has become aware of the fact that he/she has to pay a retirement allowance for at least one year with respect to the labor law, and thus he/she has paid 2 million won to the employee every year.

Although it was not specifically stated on the amount, timing and method of the interim settlement of retirement allowances, such as the statement "," the payment itself has consistently asserted.

E. The Defendant’s retirement pay to the Plaintiff in 2008 is KRW 1,565,190, KRW 1,056,826 as retirement pay in 209, and KRW 1,056,826 as retirement pay in 209.

arrow