beta
Text
Defendant:
A. As to KRW 8,33,340 among Plaintiff A and KRW 4,166,670 among them, KRW 4,16,670 from April 15, 2019 to KRW 4,16,670.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs were working in E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).
B. On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff A and B received notice of dismissal from E (the date of dismissal: February 28, 2019), Plaintiff C and D retired on March 5, 2019.
C. On April 19, 2019, the decision to commence rehabilitation was made against E.
Plaintiff
A and B were judged to be unfair on May 1, 2019 by filing an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.
Plaintiff
A returned to E on May 7, 2019, and on May 23, 2019, Plaintiff B and E agreed to the effect that “Plaintiff B and E terminate employment relationship by means of business dismissal as of February 28, 2019, and E shall be paid to Plaintiff B with a settlement amount of KRW 16.5 million with the settlement amount, on condition that the aforementioned settlement amount does not include unpaid wages, retirement allowances, etc. before dismissal.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 18 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The fact that: (a) Plaintiff A paid KRW 8,33,340 for the portion on March 3, 2019 and June 3, 2019 (i) KRW 4,166,670 for the pre-paid benefits x 2); (b) Plaintiff B did not clearly dispute the total amount of KRW 10,504 for the retirement payment and retirement pay (i.e., retirement pay of KRW 1,704,240 for the pre-paid retirement pay of KRW 8,800 for the pre-paid retirement pay of KRW 8,82,810 for the period from January 5, 2019 to March 5, 2019; and (iii) Plaintiff C did not clearly dispute the total amount of KRW 4,880,440 for the pre-paid benefits of KRW 197,630 for the year-end settlement refund of KRW 5,967,608 for the year-end settlement from January 1, 2019 to March 5.
B. The defendant asserts that there is only the obligation to pay the remainder after deducting the amount of tax from the above benefits and retirement allowances, but the obligation to pay the amount of income under the Income Tax Act is premised on the beneficiary's obligation to pay withholding taxes, and the beneficiary's obligation to pay withholding taxes is not established.