(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나2472 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나2472

임금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, while serving in a limited liability company C, was not paid wages and retirement allowances, and reported this to the Korea Labor Agency.

B. In the course of the investigation conducted by the Korea Labor Agency, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on behalf of the limited company C, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff to supply the Plaintiff with the offset aggregate amounting to KRW 33,587,720 in total amount of wages and retirement allowances from February 9, 2018 to March 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant supply agreement”).

C. Around January 8, 2019, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 27,000,000 to the Plaintiff instead of fine aggregate (hereinafter “instant monetary payment agreement”). The Defendant paid KRW 27,00,000 to the Plaintiff for a period exceeding the said period on January 11, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper number), the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant monetary payment agreement was exempted from the remainder of the obligation under the condition that the Defendant pays KRW 27,000,000 to January 8, 2019. Since the Defendant did not perform it by the above deadline, the Defendant is obliged to again supply the Plaintiff with 33,587,720 won of the instant monetary payment agreement.

However, since the Defendant did not supply the crushed stone, the Defendant paid KRW 33,587,720 to the Plaintiff as compensatory damages, and the Defendant already paid KRW 27,00,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant should pay the remainder of KRW 6,587,720 to the Plaintiff (=3,587,720 - KRW 27,00,000).

B. According to the instant agreement, the Defendant’s obligation under the instant agreement is a kind of obligation that requires the supply of fine aggregate, and in principle, the Plaintiff can seek the supply of fine aggregate to the Defendant.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s liability for the supply of fine aggregate has been due to nonperformance, and in this case, the Plaintiff is required to seek compensatory damages in order to seek compensatory damages.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나2472

-서울서부지방법원 2016.09.28 2015가단247960

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.24 2015가합556413

-의정부지방법원 2014.11.05 2014가합3136

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.04.26 2016가합2319