beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. The Plaintiff (Appointed) shall be entitled to KRW 3,744,00 as well as the interest rate from July 5, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is a company operating a telecommunications sales business, etc., and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) retired from office from February 20, 2012 to June 20, 2014; the Selection B from May 1, 2011 to April 30, 2014.
B. The Plaintiff did not receive retirement pay of KRW 3,744,00 from the Defendant, and the Selection B did not receive KRW 16,731,810,00 in total, including the amount of wages of KRW 1,289,167, May 2013, the amount of wages of KRW 2,782,417, the amount of wages of KRW 1,778,797, the amount of wages of December 2013, and the amount of wages of KRW 1,77,317, retirement allowances of KRW 9,104,112, the amount of wages of KRW 16,731,81,810.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as provided by the Labor Standards Act from July 5, 2014 to the date of full payment of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance of KRW 3,744,00 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 16,731,810 per annum from July 5, 2014 to the date of full payment of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance of KRW 14 days, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as provided by the Labor Standards Act from May 15, 2014 to the date of full payment of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance of KRW 14 days from the date of his retirement.
B. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant suffered a significant loss to the defendant company because the plaintiff did not properly calculate the cost while running his business, and the Selection B also caused a significant loss to the defendant company because it failed to properly manage the Internet site. Since the plaintiff and the Selection B asserted that each damage claim against the plaintiff's above retirement allowance claim, the Selection B's wage and retirement allowance claim against the plaintiff and the Selection B are offset against each other, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff and the Selection B caused a loss to the defendant company, as well as Article 43 of the Labor Standards Act.