(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.20 2016나31217

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.20 2016나31217

임금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs of appeal shall be individually considered.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million with the wage related to the implementation of C’s neutification project, but paid only KRW 20 million among them. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff.

B. Since the amount agreed to be paid by the Defendant is not only KRW 40 million but also KRW 25 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay only KRW 5 million payable.

However, on the wind that the plaintiff could not properly conduct freezing surgery for marking of the vehicles for neutronic surgery, the plaintiff was reduced in the project cost of KRW 19,450,00 corresponding to the occurrence of the said freezing effect among the project cost that the defendant would receive from the competent authority. The plaintiff paid KRW 4 million to the plaintiff as compensation for damages caused by negligence in the course of Cutronization surgery in D farm, so the defendant paid KRW 23,450,000 to E. Thus, the defendant has the damage claim amounting to KRW 23,450,000 against the defendant, and therefore, the amount that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff is not remaining if the plaintiff offsets against the amount equal to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

2. As to whether the Defendant agreed to pay 40 million won as remuneration or wages to the Plaintiff, each of the statements in the health care unit, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 (including virtual numbers) is insufficient to recognize it. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

In addition, as to whether the above damage was caused by the plaintiff's negligence, it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the statement of health team, Eul Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 8 (including paper numbers) and the fact-finding results of the court of first instance with respect to the Minister of Environment, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit without further review

3. If so, the defendant is about 5 million won and the complaint of this case against the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.06.14 2017가단482

-대전지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가단219195

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2014나28007

-제주지방법원 2015.01.30 2014가단6625

-대구지방법원 2019.11.29 2019가단4547