logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.05 2014가합40294
임금
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an organization composed of the occupants of B apartment located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and has managed and operated the above apartment.

Plaintiff

A A shall enter into a labor contract with the defendant around August 1997 and serve as the head of the electricity team in the apartment house of this case.

On April 30, 2014, the selected parties C and D respectively were employed on December 2001 and around March 201 of the same year as the head of the institution room in the same apartment complex.

On April 30, 2014, retirement was made.

In addition, the Selection E is employed by the defendant around August 2013 as an electrical engineer in the same apartment house.

February 28, 2014

(hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) b. by referring to the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

Plaintiff

All others have worked on a shooting-day system (However, if the working day is Saturday, 2 consecutive days of work on Sundays), and in the electricity room, they are in charge of the maintenance and repair and the inspection of electric facilities in the apartment of this case, mainly in charge of the maintenance and repair and the inspection of electric facilities in the apartment of this case, such as the inspection of personal buphones for each household, the replacement of electric buphones, and the restoration of the electric buzzle, and in charge of the maintenance and repair of water and heating facilities in the apartment of this case.

Meanwhile, since the entry, the Plaintiffs prepared an employment contract each year with the Defendant, and as to the wages, only the amount of wages (including legal allowances) without separately stating the specific items. Since then on, around 2013, the Plaintiffs divided the total amount of the annual salary into the items of basic monthly pay, night allowances, etc., and paid the amount of the total annual salary by dividing it into the items of monthly basic pay, night allowances, etc., and the wages that occur separately from the daily work are also considered to be included in the total annual salary.

C. On April 2014, the Plaintiff et al. said that “the Defendant did not receive any extension, night, holiday work allowance, etc. under the Labor Standards Act,” and in practice.

arrow