beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,176,90 and KRW 24,376,90 among the above amounts and KRW 1,800 from September 17, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a government-invested institution that, under Article 7, 8, or 27 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, where a retired worker claims the Minister of Employment and Labor to pay the unpaid wages and retirement allowances on behalf of the employer in cases falling under the grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the employer’s bankruptcy, etc., the Plaintiff is a government-funded institution that, within the scope of the amount paid, pays it to the employee
B. The Defendant failed to pay wages and retirement allowances to six employees, including A, who are employed by the Defendant due to deterioration of management, etc.
C. Six persons, including A, filed a claim with the Minister of Employment and Labor for the payment of unpaid wages, etc. under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, on September 17, 2013, paid the total of KRW 24,376,90 on behalf of the Defendant, and KRW 26,176,90 on October 4, 2013 to the employees B as substitute payment.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above findings of determination, the Plaintiff’s subrogation of the right to claim wages and retirement allowances against his/her Defendant within the scope of a substitute payment made to employees in arrears pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act. As to the Plaintiff’s total substitute payment of KRW 26,176,90, and KRW 24,376,90,00, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from September 17, 2013 on the date of payment to October 4, 2013 on the date of service of the original copy of the payment order in this case from October 21, 2014 on the date of service of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and from the next day to the date of payment to the date of full payment.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.