beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence 7-1, 9, Gap evidence 13, and Eul evidence 1, as to the cause of the claim, the fact that the plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the defendant on April 18, 2015, fixing the wages of the Songpa-gu Seoul Corporation (hereinafter "the instant construction") as KRW 4,00,000 per month, and provided the defendant with labor until August 31, 2015. The plaintiff's wages not paid by the defendant during the said period are 3,503,700 won ( KRW 99,900, June 1, 2015; KRW 1,00,000,000 for June 1, 2015; KRW 99,800 for July 9, 2015; KRW 00 for August 4, 2015).
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,503,700 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act from November 7, 2015 to June 8, 2017, which is the date of this decision, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist about the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation.
(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant provided labor until October 23, 2015, and filed a claim for wages for September and October 2015 with the Defendant, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it). 2. The Defendant’s argument as to the Defendant’s assertion is that the evidence No. 7-1 (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) was forged.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, evidence Nos. 4 and 5-1 and 9, the defendant's trade name was changed from D Co., Ltd. to the current trade name on November 28, 2014, and around April 2015, E arbitrarily created the defendant's employee according to the defendant's trade name at the construction site of this case and affixed the employee reduction.
However, evidence Nos. 5-1, 7-2 to 4, 8-1 to 5, 8-2.