logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.25 2019가단114560
임금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,261,530 among the Plaintiff and KRW 33,249,00 among them shall be KRW 16,00 from October 16, 2018, KRW 14,012,530.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In addition to the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3 above, the defendant terminated his/her business on May 31, 2018 without paying wages and retirement allowances to the employees under his/her jurisdiction and reported the closure of business on March 13, 2019. Upon the application of three employees including C, etc., the central office of the Central Office of Employment and Labor of the Republic of Korea notifies the plaintiff on September 19, 2018 of the fact of bankruptcy, etc., which was entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor, to the plaintiff on September 19, 2018. The fact that the plaintiff, who provided labor to three workers under his/her jurisdiction and provided them with part of wages and retirement allowances on behalf of the employer pursuant to the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, provided them with labor for the total amount of wages of the last three months and the amount equivalent to three-year retirement allowances (the amount equivalent to wages of the workers under his/her jurisdiction, 261,530 won, 2019).

B. The Plaintiff’s subrogation of the right to claim wages, etc. payable to the Defendant within the scope of the amount payable pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 47,261,530 per annum under the Commercial Act from October 16, 2018 to June 11, 2019 with respect to KRW 33,249,000 from each payment date, namely, damages for delay from each payment date, and KRW 14,012,530 from each payment date.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion that the rate of damages for delay, based on the Civil Act, should be applied to the Plaintiff’s claim for substitute payment. However, not only commercial activities but also ancillary commercial activities, which are commercial activities conducted by merchants for business purposes.

arrow