logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.05.02 2017나68809
임금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From October 20, 2016 to November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with labor. The wage was KRW 1,800,000 (hereinafter “instant wage”).

B. The Defendant paid KRW 1,500,000 to the Plaintiff as wages (hereinafter “prepaid wage”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining 300,000 won (=1,80,000 won (the wage in this case)-1,50,000 won (the wage in this case)) after deducting the fixed wage from the wage in this case.

B. The Defendant asserts that only KRW 1,500,000 out of the instant wage of KRW 1,800,000 was agreed with the Plaintiff, and even if not, the Defendant did not have to pay the Plaintiff any wage any more when considering the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. First of all, as to whether there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay only KRW 1,500,000 out of the instant wage of KRW 1,80,000,000, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 3, it is recognized that the Gwanak Employment Center (Labor Inspector B) sent text messages to the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff’s wage is KRW 1,80,000, and on January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff sent text messages to the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff’s wage is KRW 1,50,000,000.

However, even according to the above facts of recognition, it is not sufficient to recognize that an agreement was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the direction of exchanging only KRW 1,500,000 out of the instant wage of KRW 1,80,000, and further, it is not sufficient to recognize that the “legal binding agreement” with the Plaintiff regarding the reduction of the instant wage has been reached, as alleged by the Defendant.

arrow