(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나4731 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나4731

퇴직금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is liable to pay the said retirement allowance to the Plaintiff, even though he/she retired on April 11, 2017 when he/she provided labor under employment of the Defendant, who is engaged in the business of painting from March 20, 2015 to “C” and retired on April 11, 2017.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff provided labor under employment of the Defendant who operates the painting business from March 20, 2015 to “C” and was not paid retirement allowance of KRW 2,894,402 from the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the aforementioned retirement allowance of KRW 2,894,402 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 26, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the 14th day from the Plaintiff’s retirement date.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of retirement pay for the above service period was KRW 2,910,03, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the retirement pay occurred exceeding KRW 2,894,402 only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).

As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant agreed to pay the retirement allowance in advance to the Plaintiff in advance by paying the retirement allowance in addition to the KRW 120,000 per day separately from the daily amount of KRW 120,00 per day, and accordingly, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the retirement allowance to the Plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement to pay a certain amount of money in advance with the daily allowance paid each day between the Plaintiff and the Defendant along with the daily allowance paid each day (hereinafter “retirement allowance installment agreement”), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

참조조문

-근로기준법

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2020.07.02 2019나5775

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.11.13 2020가단5832

-서울북부지방법원 2018.02.02 2017나2128

-창원지방법원 2018.12.21 2018나51055

-인천지방법원 2015.02.04 2014나16234