beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,206,184 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 16, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s teacher on February 28, 1983, and served as the Cmiddle School principal operated by the Defendant from March 1, 2013.
B. The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff from his position on August 28, 2014, and on December 5, 2014, respectively.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the above removal from position and the above removal from position (Korean Supreme Court Decision 2014Gahap54694) and subsequently rendered a partial favorable judgment that confirmed that the removal from position is null and void (However, since the above removal from position became null and void by the above removal from position, the above removal from position became null and void by the above removal from position, and there was no interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the removal from position, and the above decision of the Seoul High Court became final and conclusive on August 24, 2014, following the dismissal of the appeal, Supreme Court Decision 2015Na2034299, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da221627, Supreme Court Decision 20
Meanwhile, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 172,228,860 among the unpaid wages from August 17, 2014 to November 2016, and KRW 22,101,210 among the unpaid wages from March 7, 2017 to February 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, evidence 2-1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The part concerning the claim for unpaid wages is examined as to the claim, and where the dismissal of an employer is null and void, the labor contract relation remains effective during that period, notwithstanding the fact that the employee was unable to provide labor due to the cause attributable to the employer, and thus, the employee may claim full payment of the wages that the employee could have received when he continued to provide (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da39860, Dec. 8, 1992). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the health class and the above-mentioned facts, the Defendant was on August 2014, 201.