(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.07.26 2015가합22812

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) 울산지방법원 2017.07.26 2015가합22812

퇴직금 등 지급 청구

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 159,032,966 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from July 15, 2014 to July 26, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who served in C Hospital run by the Defendant from May 1, 1997 to June 30, 2014.

B. From May 1, 1997 to April 30, 2005, the Plaintiff received a monthly amount equivalent to the aggregate of Gap's age tax and resident tax from the Defendant during the period of employment, including the monthly salary as retirement allowances.

C. From May 1, 2005 to June 30, 2012, the Defendant, on each payment day indicated below, settled the Plaintiff a one-year amount of money in the name of the interim payment of retirement allowances for the period of employment from May 1, 2005 to June 30, 2012 as follows.

There is no evidence to accurately specify the date on which the interim amount of retirement pay was paid during the period from 2006 to 2008.

Amount of interim retirement allowances paid from May 1, 2005 to April 30, 206, KRW 15,56,740 on May 1, 2006 to April 1, 2006, KRW 2007. 15,180,830 on May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2007; KRW 37,331,50 on April 30, 208 to 36. 1. 5, 208 to 3. 4. 1. 6, 208; KRW 5. 4,50 on May 1, 2008 to 3. 1. 4, 2008; KRW 5. 4,50 on April 30, 2009 to 1. 4, 2005; KRW 5. 1,500 on May 14, 2009 to 1.4

D. On July 14, 2014, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 71,765,000 in the name of retirement allowances (=amount of KRW 80,400,000 in total of income tax and resident tax) for the period of work from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties did not have any agreement on interim settlement of retirement allowances with the Defendant. Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on interim settlement of retirement allowances, this is, in principle, null and void, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s application for interim settlement of retirement allowances, which is presented as evidence of the interim settlement of retirement allowances by the Defendant, as an application for interim settlement

Therefore, the defendant shall transfer his retirement to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2018.01.24 2017나55261

-울산지방법원 2013.04.26 2012노757

-광주지방법원 2017.05.10 2016가단6434

-부산지방법원 2015.08.13 2015노1626

-서울남부지방법원 2020.07.10 2019가단223765