beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
(b) acquired claims entitled to the payment of allowances under this paragraph;
Likewise, on September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid annual leave allowances of 15 days, and on February 28, 2015 (=16 days x 16 days x 162 September 20, 2014, which falls under the period from September 20, 2014 to February 28, 2015.
/365) The annual leave allowance claims were acquired.
However, the three-year extinctive prescription is applied to the employee’s wage claim. Since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff’s annual leave allowance claim incurred before February 26, 2015 expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
Therefore, the defendant's annual leave allowance of 1,099,124 won (i.e., 7,352 won) - 7,352.94 won (i.e., monthly paid 1,50,000 won/monthly paid 204 hours) or less than KRW 7,352.94 won (i.e., monthly paid 1,50,000 won/monthly paid 204 hours) paid to the plaintiff on or after February 28, 2015) shall be discarded [204 hours per month paid 39 hours (6.5 hours per day) 8 hours per week) * 365/7/12] 】 6.5 hours per day of plaintiff x 23 days x 14 days after the date of withdrawal of the plaintiff; 20% of the annual paid damages from March 15, 2015 to the date of performance of the obligation to pay damages for delay ; 365/7/6/10 days per year after the date of discharge.
4. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim for unused leave allowance is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim should be dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds.
In relation to the cited part, part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the amount recognized earlier.
In relation to the dismissed part, the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes is applicable to this case in which only the plaintiff appealed.