(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.18 2018가단505196

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.18 2018가단505196

임금

Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 27,403,144 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 1, 2018 to December 18, 2018; and

Reasons

1. From April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff served as an internal director of the Defendant Company from April 6, 2012, and on April 10, 2017, there is no dispute between the parties to the withdrawal of the Defendant Company.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The fact that the Defendant Company did not pay a total of KRW 19,982,452 to the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties, and the Defendant Company is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,982,452 and delay damages.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant Company paid a certain amount of money per day to the executives and employees of the Defendant Company who are conducting overseas business trips, and paid individual expenses for the Company. The Plaintiff prepared a “Disbursement resolution” and claimed expenses for the Defendant Company, along with evidentiary documents, for the transportation expenses, etc. paid by the executives and employees of the Defendant Company for the Company. The Defendant Company confirmed the entry of the “Disbursement resolution” and evidentiary documents, and then paid them to the Plaintiff. The Defendant Company did not pay them to the Plaintiff on June 2016, August 12, 2017, and January 7, 2017.

(2) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid business trip expenses and the expenses of KRW 7,420,692 and delay damages.

(3) As to this, the Defendant Company decided not to pay an official travel fee for the registration officer under the circumstances in which the Defendant Company was in management difficulties, and claimed that KRW 5,405,470, which the Plaintiff received a corporate card from the Defendant Company and used improperly, should be recovered from the Defendant Company.

However, there was an agreement between the defendant company and the plaintiff that did not pay daily business expenses.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.11 2016가단5028159

-서울동부지방법원 2016.06.01 2016가단2438

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.05.13 2014가단12013

-대구지방법원경주지원 2017.10.17 2017가단1977

-서울동부지방법원 2016.02.19 2015나1439