logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.07.05 2019재나44
약정금
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to the court:

On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant and worked in Cvalescent Hospital run by the Defendant until April 30, 2016. Of global income tax in 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the amount equivalent to the amount of tax on wage and salary income in the Defendant and the amount equivalent to KRW 4,417,710 and penalty of KRW 5,000,000 and the amount of compensation for delay (the Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Da10677) against the Plaintiff, and the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff appealed (the Jeonju District Court 2017Na9216) and the appellate court changed the claim to seek refund 2,309,600 won and damages for delay that the Defendant received as a result of the year-end settlement of 2015 against the Plaintiff and reduced the purport of the claim.

On May 17, 2018, the Jeonju District Court: (a) accepted the Defendant’s counterclaim pursuant to the agreement to compensate for KRW 5,000,000 in the event that the Plaintiff is unable to meet the minimum working period of one year (hereinafter “instant agreement”); (b) rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim that was changed in exchange at an appellate trial (hereinafter “instant judgment”); and (c) rendered the original judgment subject to a retrial on May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff was served on the Plaintiff on May 18, 2018.

C. On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff waived the appeal, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

On January 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge of violation of the Labor Standards Act with D, which is the Defendant’s representative, and D, on the other hand, did not conclude a contract that stipulates a penalty for breach of labor contract or an amount of compensation for breach of labor contract with the Plaintiff, but upon entering into an employment contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agreed to compensate for the amount of KRW 5,00,000 in the event of breach of the contract, which was subject to a summary order of KRW 500,000, and the Jeonju District Court No. 2018, Jul. 293,

arrow