logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.01 2015나37846
임금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. We examine the determination as to the cause of the claim. The Plaintiff was in charge of the entertainment at the entertainment bar operated by the Defendant from March 7, 2012 to March 5, 2014; the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s salary of KRW 1.4 million for March 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 1.2 million for the following month on the seventh day of each month, may be acknowledged without any dispute between the parties, or by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, from April 8, 2012 to March 5, 2014. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 14.1 million in total from the Defendant to March 5, 2014.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is entitled to pay the Plaintiff KRW 28,757,142 calculated by adding the benefits from March 7, 2012 to March 5, 2014 [2,640,00 won calculated by adding the benefits to KRW 1.2 million per month for 22 months from April 2014 to January 2014, as the Plaintiff seeks, from among the benefits of KRW 1.4 million paid on March 7, 2012 to KRW 1.27/28, and KRW 27/28, KRW 757, and KRW 1.42 for February 2014 (i.e., KRW 1.2 million x KRW 1.2 million x KRW 27/28, KRW 2745, Feb. 7, 2014 to KRW 5, KRW 1.4714,514, KRW 714514,5714).

B. 1) The defendant defense that he paid all wages from March 2012 to February 2013, 2013, and the defendant asserted that he paid all wages from February 2012 to February 2013, 2013 to the plaintiff as stated in Gap evidence No. 2, but it is insufficient to acknowledge the remainder of wages in cash. However, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff agreed to reduce wages from March 2013 to February 2014 to the plaintiff is without merit, and the plaintiff employment the plaintiff any further because it is difficult to do so due to the circumstances that the plaintiff was a part of the entertainment bar business.

arrow