logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015나3321
임금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' main claim

A. The Defendant, who is engaged in the private election campaign for determining the cause of the Plaintiffs, was employed from February 10, 2014 to February 30, 2014, and Plaintiff B, from March 4, 2014 to April 30, 2014, and engaged in the election planning and management affairs. The Defendant, on March 3, 2014, paid KRW 1.5 million among the wages of Plaintiff A, and KRW 4.5 million among the wages of KRW 2.8 million among the wages of Plaintiff B and KRW 3 million on April 3, 2014, and KRW 5.8 million among the wages of KRW 2.5 million and KRW 3 million on April 3, 2014, did not dispute between the parties, or was obligated to pay KRW 1.5 million to each of the Plaintiffs’ retirement wages of KRW 4.5 million until April 25, 2014, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the Defendant may recognize that the Plaintiffs’ retirement damages of KRW 1.5.

B. As to the determination of the defendant's assertion, the defendant is the employee of Eul, a real representative of D, and the defendant and the defendant's statement of payment (No. 3) dated April 4, 2014 prepared between the defendant and the defendant and the plaintiff and the plaintiff, which was made on April 30, 2014 between the defendant and the defendant and the plaintiff, that the defendant accused the defendant at the labor office unless the plaintiffs are paid the wages, or that the statement of payment (No. 2) made on April 30, 2014 was made by the defendant and the plaintiff, which was made on the wind of the defendant's office, or that it was made by deceiving the defendant that the plaintiff would pay the wages to the plaintiffs, and it is not effective. However, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable because the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to find that the above fact-finding or the statement of payment was made by coercion or deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. The defendant.

arrow