logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.13 2013가단332593
임금 및 퇴직금
Text

1. All claims filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties listed in the separate sheet are dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs concluded a labor contract with M&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M&C”) and were engaged in duties such as computer traffic, etc., and were not paid wages and retirement allowances equivalent to the amount of each claim stated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant overdue wages, etc.”).

B. On November 15, 2013, the Defendant, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Co., Ltd.”) received a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures from the Seoul Central District Court 2013hap212 on November 15, 2013, and Company B was appointed as the manager.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5 to 34

2. Determination

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion is that as a subsidiary of the company prior to the rehabilitation, the company prior to the rehabilitation was subject to the rules and regulations of the company prior to the rehabilitation, and not only the plaintiffs but also the management support team of the company prior to the rehabilitation manages all duties such as the payment of wages, leave, and provision of goods, etc. to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are actually employed by the company prior to the rehabilitation, and the company prior to the rehabilitation is obliged to pay the

Therefore, the plaintiffs' rehabilitation claims against the defendant should be confirmed as public-interest claims equivalent to the wages in arrears in this case.

B. The evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 1 of this case is alone that the rehabilitation fully employed the Plaintiffs.

It is insufficient to recognize that a reorganization company has a duty to pay the overdue wages, etc. of this case against the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow