beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 8,316,140 to Plaintiff A, KRW 14,725,020 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money from February 15, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is a juristic person established mainly for the purpose of the household manufacturing business for vessel use. The Plaintiff A was employed by the Defendant Company from August 1, 2014, and the Plaintiff B was employed by the Defendant Company from April 1, 2012 to January 31, 2016, respectively.
B. The wages and retirement allowances that the plaintiffs did not receive from the defendant company are as listed below:
Plaintiff
A Plaintiff B’s wage of KRW 2,148,00 in August 2015 (including bonuses), KRW 500,000 in December 2016 (including bonuses), KRW 3,154,00 in January 2016, KRW 1,420,00 in January 3, 2016, KRW 3,016,140 in total of KRW 8,316,03,020 in total of KRW 8,316,140 in 14,725,020 in January 2016.
C. D, an actual manager of the Defendant Company, was issued a summary order on the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act by the Ulsan District Court 2016 High Court Decision 6680 regarding the payment of wages and retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs, but the said summary order became final and conclusive as it did not request formal trial.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A a total of KRW 8,316,140, and the Plaintiff B a total of KRW 14,725,020 of wages and retirement allowances, and each of the said amounts, with compensation for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from January 31, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is from February 15, 2016 to the date of full payment, of which the Plaintiffs retired.
B. On the other hand, in the case of Plaintiff A, the Defendant agreed to pay the retirement allowance accrued each year at the time of entering into the employment contract as included in the wages, and thus, it cannot accept the above Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.