beta
Text
Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to the facts that there is no dispute over the claim for advance notice of dismissal, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant managing "D" in Jeju City as an employee (doctor) on September 1, 2017, and the defendant immediately dismissed the plaintiff without prior notice of October 31, 2017. 2) based on the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is subject to the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 16270, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter the same shall apply).
(B) Pursuant to the main text of Article 26, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay an advance notice of dismissal equivalent to the ordinary wage for at least 30 days. (B) As to the amount of advance notice of dismissal allowance, Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act defines “ordinary wage” as hourly wage, daily wage, weekly wage, weekly wage, monthly wage, or contract amount to be paid to an employee for a prescribed work or total work regularly and uniformly.
According to Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff received 11 million won each as wages of September 2017 and 10. The plaintiff's ordinary daily wage of 360,655 won (=(100,000 won x 2) ± 61 days, less than a minority; hereinafter the same shall apply). The 30-day ordinary wage is 10,819,650 won (360,655 won x 30 days).
On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the pre-determination allowance includes the amount of national pension, the amount of health insurance premiums and long-term care insurance premiums, taxes, etc., but the ordinary wage under the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act refers to the amount determined to be paid to the worker. Since the amount of national pension, health insurance premiums and long-term care insurance premiums, taxes, etc. claimed by the plaintiff
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da30801, Jul. 29, 1994). Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.