beta
Text
1. The Defendants: (a) each of the Plaintiff A, KRW 2,900,00, and KRW 2,600,000 to the Plaintiff B; and (b) each of them from April 19, 2014.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims
(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7 and Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers).
(1) The Defendants are married couple, Defendant D is registered as business operator of E (hereinafter “E”), and Defendant C is the actual manager of E.
(2) After entering into an employment contract with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs worked in E from March 3, 2014 to April 4, 2014, and retired on April 4, 2014.
(3) The wages that the Plaintiffs did not receive from the Defendants are KRW 2.9 million for Plaintiff A, and KRW 2.6 million for Plaintiff B.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are liable to pay to each of the Plaintiffs (joint and several) KRW 2.9 million, KRW 2.6 million, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from April 19, 2014 to the date of full payment, 14 days after the retirement of the Plaintiffs.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that, rather than concluding an employment contract with the Plaintiffs, they concluded a contract, and that they had the Plaintiffs perform the printing body construction among the construction works for expanding the chemical plant of F, a stock company F. In the process of construction, there was a defect in the roof-oriented line due to the installation of the roof re-building, and the roof-oriented line was shorter and the roof-oriented line was shorter and the damage, such as the cost of replacement of the board, etc., occurred. Thus, the Plaintiffs asserted that they have a duty to compensate for the damages that occurred therefrom.
B. The reasoning of the judgment is sufficient to acknowledge the Defendants’ above assertion solely on the basis of each description of Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Furthermore, since wages should be paid directly to an employee, it is difficult for an employer to offset the employee's wage claims with the employee's claims.