beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,194,99 to Plaintiff A, KRW 12,541,318 to Plaintiff B, and each of them from December 6, 2013.
Reasons
1. As to the cause of the claim, Plaintiff A was employed by the Defendant from June 19, 2012 to May 20, 2013, and Plaintiff B from December 26, 2012 to May 9, 2013, and was in charge of establishing a hospital. At the time of retirement, Plaintiff A’s wages of KRW 26,549,60, and Plaintiff B did not receive wages of KRW 13,360,148 from the Defendant at the time of retirement; Plaintiff A transferred KRW 9,354,601, and KRW 818,830 from each of the above wage claims to Nonparty D during the instant lawsuit to Nonparty D, the fact that Plaintiff A transferred KRW 818,30,00 among the wage claims in this case is either deemed to have been paid by evidence No. 4-1, 3, 7, evidence No. 11-7, and 12, or there is no dispute between the parties as a whole.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A wages of 17,194,99 won (26,549,600 won - 9,354,601 won), the wage of 12,541,318 won (i.e., 13,360,148 won - 818,830 won) to the plaintiff B, and damages for delay determined at the rate of 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act from December 6, 2013 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiffs.
2. The defendant's assertion and judgment that the defendant agreed to reduce 50% of the wages with the plaintiffs around February 10, 2013. Thus, the defendant's unpaid wages are KRW 16,469,60 in the case of the plaintiff A, KRW 3,225,80 in the case of the plaintiff B, and KRW 19,854,601 in the auction procedure of the defendant's property, and KRW 22,173,221 in the case of the plaintiff B, and KRW 22,173,221 in the case of the defendant's property, the defendant's additional wages are not paid to the plaintiff B. Thus,
First of all, it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant to reduce wages only with the evidence submitted by the defendant as to the allegation of wage reduction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without
The following arguments to the effect that reimbursement is made are written in the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 12 and No. 14.