logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.12.13 2019나4172
임금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

On May 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had worked at the site of Kimpo area E, which was executed by D through the Defendant, the president of the “C”, and thereafter, D paid the Defendant’s wages to the Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s wages of KRW 2.27 million, via four bank accounts, such as F, via four bank accounts.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,50,000,000 paid to F’s bank account out of KRW 2,270,000 to the present day.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 1.50,000 to the plaintiff and the damages for delay.

The defendant asserted that "the wages of workers shall be deposited directly by the passbook of the worker, and it shall not be paid by the passbook." The defendant introduced four Korean persons, such as F, etc. to lend the bank account to the plaintiff and D.

Since then, D deposited the Plaintiff’s wage into the account of F, etc., and the remaining persons except F paid the deposited money to workers immediately, but F did not pay the Plaintiff’s wage up to now.

At the request of the plaintiff, etc., the defendant only introduced those who will loan the bank account to receive the wage including F, and there is no fact that the plaintiff was paid the plaintiff's wage from D, and there is no obligation to pay the above wage to the plaintiff.

Judgment

Around May 2017, the Plaintiff worked at the Kimpo area E, which was executed by D through the Defendant, and thereafter deposited 2.270,000 won of the Plaintiff’s wage into four bank accounts, including DF, and up to now, F did not pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s wage of KRW 1.1,50,000,000 of the Plaintiff’s wage deposited into its bank account, may be recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings and there is no dispute between the parties.

However, the plaintiff's unjust enrichment against F, or

arrow