(영문) 춘천지방법원 2020.07.16 2019나53249

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) 춘천지방법원 2020.07.16 2019나53249

임금등

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff at the first instance court brought an action against the defendant for the payment of unpaid wages, advance notice of dismissal allowances, and damages for delay. Accordingly, the defendant brought an action against the defendant for the payment of loans and damages for delay.

The judgment of the court of first instance fully accepted the claim of the principal lawsuit, and partly accepted the counterclaim claim, which appealed on the part of the principal lawsuit only by the defendant, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the plaintiff's claim

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, along with her husband C, operates a restaurant “E” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the middle of the city located in Gangwon-si, Gangwon-si.

B. Upon entering into an employment contract with the Defendant on April 1, 2018, the Plaintiff set the Plaintiff’s monthly salary of KRW 2,600,000, and served as a delivery employee in the instant restaurant from April 14, 2018.

C. On April 26, 2018, the Plaintiff appeared to work at around 10:00 beyond the prescribed working hours without any prior contact.

At around 20:15 on the same day, the Defendant’s husband C told the Plaintiff to the effect that “I will find out another place of business as it is not good business.”

The plaintiff did not work from April 27, 2018, stating that he would immediately retire. D.

Wages that the Plaintiff should receive during the period of work from April 14, 2018 to April 26, 2018 are KRW 1,126,66.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged in 2. Paragraph 2, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wage of KRW 1,126,666.

B. The plaintiff of the 1st party's assertion on the part of the claim for the pre-determination allowance of dismissal asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the pre-determination allowance of dismissal, since the defendant did not make the pre-announcement of dismissal 30 days before dismissal

2.3.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나49880

-수원지방법원 2019.01.24 2017나18467

-서울동부지방법원 2017.05.17 2016나25616

-서울고등법원 2018.05.02 2017나2048315

-서울고등법원 2016.01.29 2014나2048017