beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 5,946,550, KRW 9,452,212, and KRW 7,473,694 and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A provided labor under employment of the Defendant from May 4, 201 to February 10, 2012. However, Plaintiff A was not paid KRW 5,946,50 in total, KRW 2,020,000 on December 2, 2011, and KRW 2,900,000 on January 1, 201, and KRW 1,026,550 on February 2, 2012.
B. Plaintiff B provided labor under the employment of the Defendant from February 22, 2010 to March 20, 2012 as the head of the business division. However, Plaintiff B did not receive KRW 9,452,212,00,000 on January 2, 2012, wage of KRW 2,50,00,00 on February 2, 2012, wage of KRW 1,66,60 on March 3, 2012, wage of KRW 1,66,66,60 on March 2, 2012, and retirement allowance of KRW 4,949,69,692.
C. Plaintiff C provided labor under employment of the Defendant from April 11, 201 to May 2, 2012 as C, but did not receive KRW 7,473,694, which is the sum of KRW 1,926,66, and wage 2,266,666, and wage 110,000 on April 2, 2012, and retirement pay 3,170,362.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6 through Gap evidence 24 (including partial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from June 28, 2013 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiffs, with respect to the amount of KRW 5,946,550, KRW 9,452,212, KRW 7,473,694 to the plaintiff C, and each of the above amounts, 14 days after the date of retirement of the plaintiffs.
B. The defendant's assertion (1) argues that the wages in arrears against the plaintiff A are 5,648,00 won, but the wages in arrears against the plaintiff plaintiff A are 5,946,550 won as seen earlier, and the statements in the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 1-2 do not interfere with the above recognition. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
(2) In addition, the Defendant collected a sum of KRW 900,000 directly from E, F, and G, which is the Defendant’s customer.