1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff was serving in the Defendant Company from September 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015, and resigned from the company, and was not paid KRW 1,436,080 for one month before the retirement.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 1,436,080 and delay damages.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's damage claim amounting to KRW 600,000,000, which is the sum of KRW 600,000,000, which is arbitrarily brought by the plaintiff and KRW 50,000,00, which

There is no evidence to prove whether the Plaintiff voluntarily brought about the sound control apparatus owned by the Defendant, and there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff voluntarily consumeded KRW 50,000 oil owned by the Defendant, but the amount of wages to the employee is to be paid directly to the employee (Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act), so the employer may not set off against the employee’s wage claims by his/her loans or obligations arising out of tort except for the refund claims of excess wages paid.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do2168 delivered on July 13, 199, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da26721 delivered on December 21, 1995, etc.). Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay 1,436,080 won unpaid to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 15, 2015 to May 13, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, from February 15, 2015 to May 14, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act from the following day to the day of full payment.

(The plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated from the date following the retirement date, but the claim during the grace period under Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act is without merit). 3. The plaintiff's claim is with merit within the scope of the above recognition.