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

1. On April 13, 2018, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as to the following criminal facts, etc. from the Goyang Branch Branch of the Jung-gu District Court (2018 High Court Decision 683), and the said summary order became final and conclusive on April 27, 2018.

The Defendant, as an individual business entity and employer who performed a stone construction work at the site of the new construction of private housing in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, did not pay the Plaintiff’s wage of KRW 2.1 million in July 2016, and the wage of KRW 900,000 in August 2016, who worked as a stone hole at the same construction site from July 14, 2016 to August 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Even if a civil trial is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, unless there is a special circumstance where it is difficult to

(Supreme Court Decision 92Da31453 Decided January 15, 1993). According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 3,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from August 6, 2016, which was 14 days after the Plaintiff’s retirement date, to the date of complete payment, from August 21, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

(The part on the period before August 21, 2016 among the plaintiff's damages for delay is dismissed as it is without merit). (b)

As to this, the defendant's employment of the plaintiff is not the defendant's individual but the defendant's representative director is D, and since the construction site of this case was completed on or around July 10, 2016, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed. However, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.