beta
Text
1. The defendant's money and above stated in the "claim amount for each plaintiff" as stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiffs are employed by the defendant who operates real estate leasing business, etc., and provide each labor during the period indicated in the "period of work" of the "amount claimed by each plaintiff" in the attached Form No. 1. However, the defendant can recognize that each of the wages stated in the "amount claimed by each plaintiff" in the attached Form No. 1 which occurred during the above service period is not paid between the parties concerned
According to such facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as provided by the Labor Standards Act from September 6, 2018 to the date of full payment, 14 days after the date of occurrence of each cause for payment, as claimed by the plaintiffs, to the plaintiffs with respect to each of the money and each money stated in the "claim Amount by plaintiff" in attached Form.
In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that "The plaintiff cannot respond to the claim of this case unless the settlement of the cost of defect repair is made, since the defect occurred in the waterproof Construction."
However, even if there is a fact that there was a defect in waterproof construction as alleged by the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs are liable for the said defect solely based on the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the Plaintiffs are liable for the damages arising from waterproof construction, the wages shall be paid directly to the employees in currency (Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act). As such, the Defendant’s claims equivalent to the defect repair cost owed by the Plaintiffs are not offset against the Plaintiffs’ wage claims.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and all of them are accepted.