logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.18 2017가단230172
임금 등
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 55,883,505; (b) KRW 24,510,674; and (c) KRW 24,510,674 to Plaintiff A; and (b) from June 15, 2019 to each of the said money.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant (formerly: D Foundation) was a non-profit corporation that established around January 2013 and provides consulting on studying abroad. From February 2013 to February 2016, the operation of an alternative school E school, which was entrusted from July 2013 to March 2015, the preparation for the establishment of F University from July 2013 to March 2015, and the preparation for establishment of G from February 2015 to July 31, 2016, and closed down business on March 31, 2016.

B. On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff A was appointed as the principal of E-school from the Defendant.

Plaintiff

A, who was a professor of F University, was the 2,500,000 won per month.

Plaintiff

A was appointed from the defendant on February 1, 2015 as the G Strategic Planning Director, and between the defendant and the defendant on April 1, 2015, the amount of benefits was 50 million won a year.

C. Plaintiff B served as the head of the Defendant’s administrative office from the establishment of the Defendant to the closure of business.

The Defendant’s representative, even if the Plaintiffs retired on March 17, 2016, issued a summary order of KRW 7 million on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s total amount of wages of KRW 69,121,460, retirement allowance of KRW 12,035,205, and the Plaintiff’s total amount of wages of KRW 33,313,230, retirement allowance of KRW 7,244,834, and the Defendant’s representative did not pay the retirement allowance of KRW 7,000,000 to the Defendant’s violation of the Labor Standards Act; and (b) the summary order was issued on August 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 14-1 to 3 [the certificate Nos. 2-2 (a) and the defendant's stamp image part is presumed to have been authenticity of the whole document due to the lack of dispute. The defendant defense that this document was forged by plaintiff A, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it], Gap evidence Nos. 3, 25-1 through 12, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 25-2, 4-1 through 15, 20, 20, 21, 26 through 28, Gap evidence Nos. 24-1, 26-2 through 30-7, Gap evidence No. 34-2, Gap evidence No. 38-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The amount of Plaintiff A’s wage by March 2015 is until March 2015.

arrow