beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence No. 1, the facts that the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C, and D were employed by the defendant who runs artificial fishery in the name of "E" and did not receive wages due to the defendant's internal wooden construction work on the hotel building located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongdaemun-gu from November 1, 201 to November 23, 2012, and the total amount of wages that the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C did not receive are 3.68 million won each, and the total amount of wages that the appointed party and the appointed party C did not receive are 3.2 million won each.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 3.68 million won and 3.2 million won to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C, respectively, and 3.2 million won and damages for delay to the appointed party D.
2. The defendant's defense is proved by the defendant's defense that he suspended the above work and resumed the construction again on October 27, 2012 and the person who ordered the work opened and paid the above hotel after the completion of the construction work, and the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party were also aware of the above facts. However, the defendant's defense as stated in the evidence No. 2-1 through No. 5 is recognized that the defendant was unpaid wages to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party present at the Seoul Northern Site Office of Employment and Labor in Seoul (Evidence No. 1) (Evidence No. 1). The defendant is difficult to believe it as it is, in light of the fact that the hotel of this case was open to the police officer on January 2, 2013 at the second day of the trial, it is difficult to believe it as it is, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s conclusion is as follows: (a) 3.68 million won and 3.2 million won and 3.2 million won and 3.2 million won to the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and Appointeds C respectively; and (b) 14 days from November 24, 2012, which are the day following the retirement date of the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Appointeds.