beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) 1,523,974 won to Plaintiff Y and 5% per annum from April 30, 2018 to October 26, 2018; and (b)
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant leased a factory, equipment, etc. from AS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”), and produced and processed and supplied a set of gold paper. The Plaintiffs were the employees of the Defendant from July 2016 to September 2017.
B. The sum of the wages and retirement allowances paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs in August 2017 and in September 2017 is as indicated in the column of “request amount” as indicated in the separate sheet.
C. On September 22, 2017 and October 23, 2017, Nonparty Company paid to the Plaintiffs an amount equivalent to the “transfer amount of Plaintiff’s wage claim” stated in the separate sheet.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiffs, who are employees employed by the Defendant, wages for August and September 2017 (PlaintiffY, wages and retirement allowances for August 2017 and retirement allowances for September) and damages for delay incurred from April 30, 2018 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion on the defendant's defense was that the non-party company made an implied agreement to guarantee or concurrently take over the defendant's obligation to pay wages to the plaintiff, and accordingly, the non-party company paid wages to the plaintiffs on August 9, 2017 and part of the retirement allowances to the plaintiffs on the status of the guarantor or the concurrently assuming the obligation to pay wages to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant asserted that the other defendant's obligation to the plaintiffs except the remaining retirement allowance payment obligation to the plaintiff Y was extinguished due to the non-party company's repayment.
In this regard, the plaintiffs only borrowed money equivalent to the wages of this case from the non-party company for the purpose of maintaining their livelihood, and the plaintiffs are the non-party company.