beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,447,200 as well as 20% per annum from February 25, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From October 19, 2012 to February 10, 2016, the Plaintiff received benefits of 22:00 to 07:00 won per month (1.3 million won per month from October 29, 2012 to December 31, 2014) from “D” located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “D” in the instant workplace”) to 22:0 to 07:00,000,000 per month (1.3 million won per month from January 29, 2012 to December 31, 2014, and 1.4 million won from January 1, 2015 to February 10, 2016) from the instant workplace.
B. Around January 23, 2016, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff as of February 10, 2016, and did not pay KRW 1,447,200 for the advance notice of dismissal even if the Defendant did not give 30 days prior to dismissal. On March 16, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 4,204,50 to the Plaintiff as retirement pay.
(The defendant was issued a summary order at the Seoul Western District Court due to the violation of the Labor Standards Act, which is not paid the advance notice of dismissal allowance.
On April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of violating the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits (Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office 2017 punishment No. 3878). However, the Plaintiff agreed to work only at night and receive a fixed amount of monthly wage, and the Plaintiff agreed to the wage payment system for a long time, considering the characteristics of the work that is naturally expected to work at night and that does not have to have any choice to pay a reasonable waiting time, the agreement was valid, and the agreement was made. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a separate obligation to pay a night allowance to the Plaintiff, other than the monthly wage, on the ground that there was no suspicion against the Defendant (Evidence of Evidence).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked for eight hours at the instant workplace, one-hour extension work, and one-hour extension work.