logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.01.28 2013가단19491
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The defendant is a school juristic person operating the Gwangju Women's University.

B. On March 1, 200, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a new full-time lecturer at Gwangju National University B and a full-time lecturer at Gwangju National University on November 1, 2003 and served as a C and an assistant professor at Gwangju National University until now.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is as indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4, 2003, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 222,573,700, the total amount of the Plaintiff’s allowance according to the salary class set by the Private School Teachers and Staff Pension Corporation from 2003 to 2006, but the total amount of the Plaintiff’s allowance actually paid to the Plaintiff was KRW 188,217,80, and the Defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 34,355,820, which is the difference, by means of window dressing accounting, etc., without any legal cause. 2) As indicated in the separate sheet No. 5 to 9, as stated in the separate sheet No. 5 and 2, as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 through 4, 2011, the total amount of allowance reported by the Defendant to the Plaintiff by the tax office from January 2, 2007 to December 2, 2011.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the benefits according to the salary class set by the Pension Service of the Private School Staff through the window dressing accounting or the benefits less than the amount reported to the tax office, as acknowledged earlier, as long as the employment contract relationship exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as long as the Plaintiff exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired the difference without any legal cause. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of unjust enrichment premised on this premise is

The Plaintiff is not a claim for wages with respect to the nature of money for which payment is sought through the instant lawsuit on the first day for pleading of this case.

arrow