beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. In fact, the Plaintiff is a juristic person operating a golf club, and the Defendant is an employee of the Plaintiff Company’s games and employees, who served from November 1, 201 to August 19, 2015, there is no dispute between the parties.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. Although the number of days of annual leave occurred while the Defendant worked for the Plaintiff Company was 46 days as shown in the attached Table “The occurrence of annual leave,” the Defendant actually used more than 55 days by using 101 days.
In the same season, even if there is no customer's disclosure, all employees were to work at normal work and to prepare for normal operation, and the sports division to which the Defendant belongs was three employees (such as D and E and the Defendant as the director), but all employees other than the Defendant were to work at work and to perform the snow removal work.
The amount corresponding to the number of days the defendant used in excess of his/her annual pay to the defendant is 2,583,157 won [=1,227,00 won (basic pay for the month in which he/she is on a one-month basis) ± 209 hours (one-month total working hours) 】 8 hours (one-day working hours) x 55 days (one-day working hours) x less than 55 days (one-day working hours), or since the plaintiff paid the full amount of retirement pay to the defendant without deducting it from the defendant's retirement pay, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 2,583,157 won and delay damages for the return
As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's use in excess of the annual rate is unfair because the plaintiff company did not work for a large amount of time in the winter season, even if he did not work for a golf course due to the characteristics of the golf course.
B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, it is recorded that the Defendant used tobacco more than 55 days than the annual number of days available during the Plaintiff Company’s work.
However, A.