beta
Text
1. Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against plaintiffs A and B shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is against the plaintiff A 6,500.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant, a company that engages in wholesale and retail business of medical devices, etc., employs the Plaintiffs; Plaintiff A from September 4, 2012 to March 4, 2013; Plaintiff B from July 2, 2012 to January 2, 2013; and Plaintiff C from August 27, 2012 to November 30, 2012.
B. The Plaintiffs offered labor as above and retired from office, and Plaintiff A received wages of KRW 6.5 million in total from the Defendant (i.e., KRW 1.2 million in monthly wage of KRW 4.8 million in September or December 2012 x KRW 1.2 million in monthly wage of KRW 1.2 million in each month from January or February 2013 x two months x two months - Plaintiff B received KRW 4.8 million in total (= KRW 4.8 million in September or December 2012), and Plaintiff C was not paid a total of KRW 2.4 million in total ( KRW 2.4 million in October or November 2012).
C. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of wages and damages for delay thereof with Busan District Court Decision 2013Gada39988. On March 25, 2013, the said court rendered a decision to recommend performance against the Plaintiff on March 25, 2013 (i.e., KRW 4.., KRW 4.8 million on September through December 12, 2012), KRW 4.8 million on Plaintiff B, and KRW 2.4 million on Plaintiff C, and the said decision became final and conclusive on May 28, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, fact-finding results by the court of first instance to Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine whether there is a benefit to bring the instant lawsuit to the Plaintiffs ex officio in determining the legitimacy of the lawsuit.
A. The decision on performance recommendation has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when there is no objection by the defendant against the decision, and the objection is dismissed or withdrawn (see Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). Since the plaintiffs are able to enforce compulsory execution based on the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation that became final and conclusive in the same subject matter of lawsuit (the plaintiff A is limited to KRW 4.8 million and the damages for delay) on the ground that there is no benefit in the lawsuit of this case