logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.09.28 2016가단5343
약정금
Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 15,018,00 to Plaintiff A; KRW 11,50,000 to Plaintiff B; and KRW 5,680,00 to Plaintiff C; and each of them.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiffs A, B, and C are the Defendant’s representative director E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

(2) In the case of the Plaintiff’s non-paid service period of KRW 15,00,00 (wages and retirement pay) KRW 11,550,00 (wages) on February 18, 2016, May 6, 2015 - 3 C5,680,000 (wages) on May 7, 2015 - the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 32,248,000 (wages) on May 10, 2016 to the Plaintiffs on February 19, 2016.

(B) prepared and proposed the statement. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap 1 or 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs each of the money indicated in the “number of unpaid statements” column of the above-mentioned 1-A (A), and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from April 1, 2016 to September 21, 2016, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant written each of the instant statements to the Plaintiffs is jointly and severally liable for the Defendant’s wage and retirement allowance obligations against the Plaintiffs of the instant company.

Since the company of this case has the following claims against the plaintiffs, the defendant shall use them as automatic bonds and set off against the equivalent amount with the claim of the above Paragraph 1 against the company of this case.

1) On the ground that the Plaintiff Company A was unable to pay the benefits, the vehicle indicated in the separate sheet, owned by the instant company (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”).

arrow