(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.7.22. 선고 2015나2029396 판결

1) The amount of KRW 57,239,160 as well as the amount of KRW 82,345,824 as from July 22, 2014; and the amount of KRW 38,159,40 as from October 22, 2014; the amount of KRW 38,159,40 as well as the amount of KRW 68,735,06 as from July 22, 2015; and the amount of KRW 5% as from October 22, 2015 to July 22, 2016; the amount calculated at each rate of KRW 20% as from the following day to the date of full payment;

2) Upon arrival of October 21, 2016, 41,513,260 won and 5% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

3) On October 21, 2017, 41,513,260 won and 5% interest rate per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

sub-payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining main claim and the conjunctive claim are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 60% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 104,193,20 won with 5% interest per annum from January 22, 2014 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case; 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; 30% interest per annum from July 21, 2014 to the day of full payment; 41,548,90 won with 20% interest per annum from July 21, 2014 to the day of full payment; 47,69,30 won with 20% interest per annum from the 15th day of full payment to the day of full payment; 47,69,30 won with 15% interest per annum; 5% interest per annum from the day of full payment to the day of full payment; 5% interest per annum; 5% interest per annum from the 15th day of full payment to the day of full payment; 5% interest per annum from the 2015 to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall be revoked with the primary and preparatory interest; (1) 5% per annum from January 22, 2014 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case; and (2) 69,465,00 won per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; (3) 20% interest per annum from July 22, 2014 to the date of full payment; (4) 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment; (56,712,00 won; and (6) 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment; (46,310,00 won; and (5) 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment; and (6) 20% interest per annum 10 to the date of full payment; and (4) 20% interest per annum 14 to the date of full payment;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Relationship between the Parties

The defendant is a company running financial investment business, etc., and the plaintiff is the head of FICC derivatives headquarters in the business division from April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, who is in charge of trading of derivatives and asset management of the FICC derivatives team.

B. The defendant's existing performance compensation rules

1) On March 29, 2011, the Defendant: (a) enacted a performance compensation provision; and (b) based on the subordinate guidelines or criteria set out in the above detailed provisions, “the standards for the payment of performance-based bonus to the business division belonging to the business division of the head office”; (c) however, the main contents of the performance compensation provision and the standards for the payment of performance-based bonus

▣ 성과보상규정(2011. 3. 29. 제정)제1조(목적) 이 규정은 회사 임직원의 성과보상을 리스크와 연계하여 관리하고, 단기성과중심의 인센티브 시스템을 지양하며, 성과보상에 관한 사항을 적절히 공시하는 등 회사의재무적 안정성과 건전성을 확보할 수 있는 합리적 성과보상체계를 구축함에 있다.제2조(정의) 이 규정에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같다.2. '특정직원'이란 IB, Trading(주식·채권·파생상품거래 등) 담당 부서장 및 별도의 고용계약에 따라 담당업무 경상이익 일부를 성과급으로 지급받는 직원을 말한다.3. ‘성과보상'이란 정기적, 고정적으로 지급되는 기본급 및 성과와 관계없이 지급하는 성격의 금원(수당, 실비 등 그 명목을 불문함) 외에 당해 경영진 또는 특정직원의 업무수행능력을 바탕으로 일정한 기준에 따라 평가하여 산정된 금원의 성격을 지닌 장기 또는 단기 금원을 말한다.제17조(이연지급) ① 변동보상의 상당부분은 이연지급 되어야 하며, 근무연수, 책임 및 기여의 정도에 따라 변동보상의 비율은 비례적으로 증가되어야 한다.② 이연지급 기간은 영업의 성격, 리스크 및 경영직 · 특정직원의 활동과 연계하여 한다. 다.만, 담당업무의 특성과 이에 수반되는 리스크의 존속기간 등을 고려하여 이연지급 기간은조정될 수 있다.▣ 본사영업 성과급 지급기준(2012. 7. 16.자)【 공통기준 】2. 용어의 정의성과급 : 기여수익 * 지급율(PSR, Profit Sharing Ratio)기여수익 : 성과급 지급이익 - BEP성과급 지급이익 : 순영업수익 * 수익인정비율순영업수익 : 영업수익 - 영업제비용(운영자금 Cost 포함)BEP : 직접비 + 분담금3. 성과급 산정기준□ 성과급 산정단위. 본부단위 산정 기본. 업무특성에 따라 별도로 정한 경우에는 이를 적용□ 성과급 산정기간

The method of calculation on piece rates, if separately determined based on the basis of the basis of calculation on a quarterly unit and the characteristics of business. Performance rates = Payment rate * (PSR). Detailed calculation is determined by applying the definitions of terms to the piece rates by applying the definitions of terms. Individual allocation rate shall be determined by the head of the relevant headquarters in consultation with the head of the team. According to the case, losses from the method of calculation on piece rates and earnings from contributions which can be adjusted by the head of the relevant headquarters may be treated as separate measures by the president for offset and cumulative losses by converting reserve funds and earnings from contributions. regardless of the rate of recognition, losses shall be recognized by 100%, regardless of the rate of recognition, 100% shall be recognized as the amount of gains from offset in the future, and the amount of excess profits shall be recognized as 10% as the amount of gains from offset in the future, and the period of payment on piece rates 20% from the date of application by the head of the relevant headquarters and the date of application by the head of the relevant headquarters from the date of application of piece rates 42.

A person shall be appointed.

2) The Defendant measured the performance of the project quarterly in accordance with the aforementioned performance-based bonus payment criteria and set the amount of performance-based bonuses to be allocated to the FIC derivatives teams to which the Plaintiff belongs. The performance-based bonuses, excluding organizational performance-based bonuses, allocated to the FIC derivatives teams, were paid by the head of the headquarters, the team leader, according to the performance-based bonus allocation rate consulted and determined by the executive officers and employees eligible for the payment, in consideration of the performance of each of the individual executive officers and employees eligible for the payment of the performance-based bonuses (in cases of the performance-based bonus excluding the quarterly payment amount)

The Defendant amended the regulations on performance compensation on July 16, 2013 following the expansion of the ‘Performance Compensation System Model' by the Financial Supervisory Service. The main contents of the amendment are as follows. In the event an employee or employee terminates an employment contract before the date of payment of performance-based rates, the provision was newly established that no performance-based rates shall be paid (Article 19(1)1; hereinafter referred to as the "instant provision"). The Defendant implemented the aforementioned amended performance compensation regulations retroactively from April 1, 2013.

▣ 성과보상규정(2013. 7. 16. 개정)제16조(이연지급) ① 대상자에 대한 성과보상은 3년 동안 이연하여 지급한다. 다만, 담당업무의 특성과 이에 수반되는 리스크의 존속기간 등을 고려하여 보상위원회의 결의를 거쳐최소 이연지급기간을 조정할 수 있다.② 제15조에 따라 선정된 대상자 중 다음 각 호 중 어느 하나에 해당하는 자는 당해연도산정된 성과보상의 60%를 이연지급한다.2. 당해연도 성과보상금액이 3억 원 이상인 특정직원제19조(성과보상 등의 지급조건) ① 성과보상(이연성과보상 포함)은 지급일 이전에 다음 각호에 해당하는 사유로 퇴사한 경우에는 지급하지 아니한다. 단, 대표이사의 결정으로 전부또는 일부를 지급할 수 있다.1. 임직원의 자의에 의하여 고용계약을 해지한 경우2. 임직원의 책임 있는 사유로 인하여 고용계약이 해지된 경우제21조(중도퇴사자 등의 이연성과보상 지급) ① 다음 각 호의 1에 해당하는 경우 그 임직원에 대한 이연성과보상은 해당 임직원이 계속 대상자에 속할 경우와 동일한 조건(액수, 방식 및 시기)으로 지급한다.1. 이연성과보상 지급대상 임직원(제19조 제1항의 사유에 해당하지 않는 자에 한함)이 중도 퇴사할 경우2. 이연성과보상 지급대상 임직원이 재직 중 대상자에서 제외된 경우부칙이 규정은 2013년 4월 1일부터 소급하여 시행한다.

D. Submission of the plaintiff's resignation

The plaintiff submitted a written resignation to the defendant and withdrawn on December 31, 2013.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1, 4, Eul’s evidence 1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

A) In accordance with the Defendant’s performance compensation provision, the Plaintiff’s performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based share ratio (20.6% in the first quarter allocation rate in 2013, 2013, 36.3% in the second quarter allocation rate in the case of deferred performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based income, and 28.45%) in the second quarter (from July 2013 to 9) in 2013, and 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay each claim amount as stated in each of the above allocation rates, and damages for delay from the following day:

A person shall be appointed.

B) The Defendant newly established the instant provision on July 16, 2013, but it did not have any effect since it was disadvantageously modified the rules of employment without the consent of a majority of workers. Furthermore, the instant provision is contrary to the provision prohibiting compulsory employment under Article 7 of the Labor Standards Act, and is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, as it compels workers to remain in office until the date of payment of piece rates in order to avoid disadvantages that may not have been paid

C) Even if the instant provision is valid, the Plaintiff is not voluntarily retired, but actually dismissed from the Defendant. Thus, it does not constitute “the case where the contract of employment is terminated by a person, who is a ground for piece rate rate as stipulated in the instant provision.”

2) Defendant

A) As long as the Plaintiff retired from office before the date of payment on piece rates, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay performance rates to the Plaintiff under the instant provision.

B) The Defendant’s performance compensation provision is merely an internal guidelines that set the timing of payment and the subject of payment of performance rates, which are the benefits that are mutually paid at the Defendant’s discretion, and cannot be seen as employment rules. Even if the establishment of the instant provision constitutes an unfavorable amendment to the employment rules without the consent of the majority of workers, it constitutes an unfavorable amendment that is reasonable under social norms, and thus is valid. Therefore, the Defendant is not obliged to pay performance rates to the Plaintiff

C) The Plaintiff sought payment on the premise that the unpaid interest rate of the FIC derivatives team is KRW 1,385,030,000,000. However, the unpaid interest rate is merely KRW 119,000,000,000, the deferred interest rate was changed from five to four years, and the deferred interest rate is included in the foregoing deferred interest rate claimed by the Plaintiff. In addition, according to the Defendant’s performance compensation regulations, the organization and the allocation of the unpaid interest rate shall be determined at the discretion of the CEO and the head of the business division, so it cannot be said that the Plaintiff has specific right to claim payment of the unpaid interest rate.

B. Determination

1) Determination on claims for deferred payment

A) Occurrence of claims for deferred payment of benefits

(1) The amount to be allocated to each business department through the performance measurement conducted by the Defendant on a quarterly basis; and the fact that the amount of piece rates of 1 to be paid to each of the executives and employees within 20.1 piece rates per annum of 20, 200, 30, 200, 30, 206, 30, 207, 30, 205, 206, 30, 207, 30, 205, 206, 20, 30, 200, 200, 200, 205, 20, 206, 20, 30, 206, 30, 205, 20, 206, 30, 206, 205, 20, 306, 306, 204, 200

(2) According to the above facts, the total performance bonus was already calculated according to the contribution profit of the FICC derivatives team in the first quarter and second quarter of 2013, and based on this, the specific amount of the deferred performance bonus, the timing for payment, and the individual allocation rate has already been determined, and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the deferred performance bonus as a specific right upon the arrival of the pertinent payment period. Therefore, barring any special circumstance to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obliged to pay the deferred performance bonus calculated in accordance with the performance compensation regulations on each payment date.

B) Whether the provision of this case is applied

(1) Whether the rules of employment was modified disadvantageously

The Defendant’s amendment of the performance compensation provision on July 16, 2013, thereby establishing the instant provision that no performance bonus shall be paid if an employee terminates an employment contract as a person before the date of payment of performance bonus. The revised performance compensation provision was retroactively implemented from April 1, 2013, and the Plaintiff submitted a resignation document and recognized the fact that he retired on December 31, 2013, which is before the date of payment of performance bonus to be sought in the instant case. However, the Defendant’s performance compensation provision is a general rule that sets working conditions, such as the measurement of performance, performance payment method, payment conditions, etc. of the executives and employees eligible for performance compensation including the Plaintiff, and the enactment of the instant provision that excluded the person who terminated the employment contract as a person before the date of payment of performance bonus constitutes an amendment to the rules of employment. However, the Defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had undergone the amendment of the rules of employment, such as amending the performance compensation provision with the consent of a majority of the employees to whom the performance compensation provision applies.

(2) Whether it is reasonable by social norms

(A) In principle, imposing unfavorable working conditions by unilaterally depriving workers of their rights and interests through the formulation and revision of new rules of employment, is not permissible. However, even if the preparation or revision of the said rules of employment is deemed necessary and on both sides of the necessity and content thereof, in a case where it is deemed reasonable under the generally accepted social norms to the extent that the legal norm of the pertinent provision remains acceptable, its application cannot be denied solely on the ground that there is no consent by the collective decision-making method of the workers subject to the previous rules of employment or the rules of employment. In addition, to recognize that the establishment or revision of the rules of employment is reasonable under the generally accepted social norms, it does not go against the legislative intent of the Labor Standards Act that intends to protect workers, such as substantial disadvantage to the workers, and thus, the existence of rationality in social norms ought to be determined by comprehensively considering the degree of disadvantage suffered by the workers in itself due to the revision of the rules of employment, the necessity and degree of amendment, the reasonableness of the contents after the amendment, and the degree of disadvantage suffered by the workers, the legislative intent of the proviso 20.

(B) Based on the above legal doctrine, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the establishment of the instant provision by the Defendant, while amending the performance compensation provision, as an amendment to the rules of employment that is reasonable by social norms, is a matter of social norms, and thus valid health class, the evidence mentioned above, as well as the evidence Nos. 11-1 and No. 11-5, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings.

① The Plaintiff constitutes a specific employee (Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Performance Compensation Regulations) who receives part of the ordinary profit in charge as performance-based bonus, and the performance compensation paid to the Plaintiff constitutes “amount assessed and calculated according to a certain standard based on the ability to perform duties of the pertinent specific employee” (Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Performance Compensation Regulations), and thus it is difficult to regard it as a collective performance-based allocation or benefit of a mutually advantageous nature. In addition, the performance compensation regulations and the standards for calculating the performance-based bonus, calculation method, payment method, payment date, etc. are stipulated in the performance-based bonus payment standards and the head office business performance-based performance-based bonus payment standards. Accordingly, in the month following the end of each quarter, the pertinent business department’s total performance-based bonus in the pertinent business department and the individual performance-based bonus distribution rate are determined and the right to claim the performance-based bonus and the individual's performance-based payment rate are specific rights. However, since the date of payment does not arrive

② The performance-based bonus system is a system that reduces the amount of compensation postponed or compensates for losses in preparation for potential losses to be paid to executives and employees of a financial investment company for several years, and it is widely implemented through the Financial Supervisory Service model rule since 2010 in order to prevent the perception that it is only a company if an executive officer or employee of a financial investment company is receiving high performance-based bonuses with the aim of pursuing excessive risk in the short term if he/she leaves the company. However, the purport of the performance-based bonus system is to prevent the occurrence of actual losses due to the realization of potential future losses as of the date of payment of performance-based bonuses, the employer may reduce the amount of compensation postponed by reflecting it, and the defendant shall be paid the same conditions to the retired employee, which does not fall under Article 21(1)1 of the amended performance-based bonus compensation regulations. Ultimately, the instant provision is merely a provision that prevents voluntary severance from employment of executives and employees before the date of payment of performance-based bonuses, rather than the provision to achieve the purpose of the performance-based bonus system.

③ Under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Model Regulations amended on February 1, 2013, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets (hereinafter referred to as the "Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets") mentioned that the payment of the deferred payment rate to the retired management and a specific employee may be decided autonomously by the company, but the payment of the deferred payment rate is subject to the Model Regulations regardless of whether or not the retirement is made. However, the purport of the above Model Regulations is that the amendment of the Performance Compensation Regulations and the procedure necessary for the amendment of the Rules of Employment is not necessary. It is difficult to view that the practices that exclude voluntary retirees from the payment of deferred payment rate are established in the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets.

④ Although it is assumed that the Plaintiff’s bonus should be waived and resigned, and the time should be left to an employee’s free judgment, considering the Plaintiff’s bonus’s share of piece rates in the Plaintiff’s bonus, the amount of deferred payment and the amount of deferred payment that the Plaintiff should give up at the time of withdrawal, and the Plaintiff’s failure to improve other working conditions at the time of the establishment of the instant provision, it cannot be deemed that the extent of disadvantage the Plaintiff entered is gross due to the establishment of the instant provision.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant provision does not have the effect as the rules of employment to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff does not have the obligation to pay the interest rate to the Plaintiff pursuant to the said

C) Scope of payment of deferred pay;

(1) The Defendant’s interest rate of 347,325,00 won, excluding the quarterly payment during the first quarter of 2013, and 231,50,000 won as of July 21, 2014; and the Defendant’s interest rate of 283,560,000 won, excluding the quarterly payment during the second quarter of 2013, and the remainder of the annual interest rate of 283,560,00 won, excluding the quarterly payment, is 236,691,00 won as of October 21, 2015; 142,95,000 won as of October 21, 2016; and 20% as of the quarterly payment rate of 20,000,000 won as of the output payment rate of 20,000 won as of the first quarter of 20,000 won as well as the evidence of the Defendant’s headquarters.

(2) According to the above facts, the remaining deferred performance pay out of the quarterly deferred performance pay out of the amount of quarterly deferred performance pay, excluding the amount of quarterly deferred performance pay, appears to include the amount of reserve payment to be used as the amount of organizational performance pay. The remaining deferred performance pay out of the quarterly deferred performance pay out of the amount of quarterly deferred performance pay out of the amount of quarterly deferred performance pay out of the first quarter of 2013 also includes the amount of reserve payment. Therefore, the Plaintiff may seek for the amount of the amount indicated in the following table in which the ratio of reserve payment to be used as the financial resources for organizational performance pay out of the amount of unpaid deferred performance pay is limited to 20% of the remaining amount, which is applied to the amount of the annual deferred performance pay out of

A person shall be appointed.

(3) In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the amount of deferred interest rate payable in the first and second quarter of 2013, which was adjusted, was changed to the determination of BPE ratio, operating expenses, and loss by team as of the end of the business year, and that part of deferred interest rate was changed from five to four years.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in evidence No. 11 and No. 12, the Defendant’s comprehensive planning set forth in evidence No. 11 and No. 12, based on the overall purport of the arguments, the Defendant’s comprehensive planning set up the following facts: (a) changed the payment method of part of the transaction subject to performance-based bonuses (NIC derivatives trading with recreations, five times or more, and Quantship trading) into 4:2:2:2; and (b) proposed the settlement method of performance-based bonuses applied retroactively from the second quarter of 2013; and (c) obtained approval by the Defendant’s proposal for the settlement of performance-based bonuses applied retroactively from the second quarter of 2013; (d) the unpaid amount of performance-based bonuses from the second quarter of 2013 to the amount of the unpaid amount of performance-based bonuses from the date of changing the payment method as above; (e) the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid the unpaid amount of performance-based bonuses to the FIC derivatives derivatives from the 20th quarter of 2013 years.

2) Determination on the claim for organizational performance-based payment

A) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments, it is recognized that the Defendant’s headquarters business performance bonus payment standards provide that the CEO and the head of the business division shall determine the organization and salary distribution. Accordingly, the Defendant’s representative director and the head of the business division may decide on whether to allocate the organization and salary to the Plaintiff at their discretion. Therefore, it is determined that the Plaintiff has no specific right to seek organization and salary payment.

B) In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the rate of allocation of the deferred rate is also applicable to the organizational performance rating. However, despite the provision of the above provision of subparagraph 14, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s representative director and the business head have renounced discretion of allocation of the deferred rate and applied the deferred rate to the organizational performance rating as it is, notwithstanding the provision of the above provision of the standards for payment of the bonus of the headquarters business performance rating, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the Plaintiff

C) Therefore, without any need to further examine the remaining issues, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion based on the premise that he/she has the right to claim payment of organizational performance.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, even if the defendant has an obligation to pay to the plaintiff, ① annual interest rate of 57,239,160 won on July 21, 2014 and delayed payment damages, ② annual interest rate of 82,345,824 as of the 2nd quarter of October 21, 2014 and annual interest rate of 20.1st and annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 15th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 3th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th and June 21, 2015, and the defendant’s interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th annual interest rate of 20th interest rate of 26th annual interest rate of 2136th annual interest rate of 20.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From the beginning of December 2013, the Defendant was unable to operate assets by excluding the Plaintiff from the approval line, and the Plaintiff’s position and economic disadvantage is referred to as the head of the headquarters to dismiss the Plaintiff from the position of the head of the headquarters, and the Plaintiff suffered losses by submitting a resignation certificate and not receiving piece rates. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim as compensation for damages caused by the said coercion, which is a tort.

B. Determination

In order to be a declaration of intent by force against homicide, it is sufficient to recognize that the other party made an expression of harm and injury by unlawfully notifying the other party of any harm and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da73708, 73715, May 13, 2003), Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6-3, 4, 5, Gap evidence 7, 9, 10, Gap evidence 11-2, and the testimony of the witness of the first instance court C alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant submitted the letter of resignation to the plaintiff by notifying the plaintiff of any unlawful harm and injury, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining primary claim and conjunctive claim are dismissed as they are without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance, including the plaintiff's appeal partially accepted and the claim expanded in the trial.

Judges

Justices Kim Jin-jin

Judges Hong Young-young

Judges Song Jong-dae

Note tin

1) Business activities involving development, operation, and marketing of in-kind and derivatives related to foreign exchange, interest rates, raw materials, etc., such as bond, foreign exchange, fixed ine, currency, commodity, and FICC affairs;

2) The 28.6% asserted by the Plaintiff appears to be a clerical error of 28.45%.

3) The same shall also apply in cases of piece rates of less than KRW 100, but not more than KRW 100, July 21, 2014, October 21, 2014, and October 21, 2015.

4) The evidence No. 2 stated the piece rate of piece rates of KRW 1,630,232,00 and the piece rate of piece rates of KRW 1,183,453,00. However, even based on the above evidence, piece rates of piece rates of KRW 1,183,454,00 based on the calculation (i.e., the piece rate of piece rates of piece rates of KRW 283,560,00 after one year + the amount of piece rates of KRW 236,691,00 + the amount of KRW 142,952,00 for three years + the amount of KRW 142,952,00 for four years + the quarterly amount of KRW 301,839,460 + the amount of piece rates of piece rates of KRW 75,460,305,400 for five years plus the amount of piece rates of piece rates of KRW 46,307,407,4000.

(v)bees less than Won, hereinafter the same shall apply.

심급 사건

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.5.28.선고 2014가합508882

서울고등법원 2016.7.22.선고 2015나2029396

참조조문

참조판례