beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs with each money indicated in the “request amount” column in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant M;
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Claim against Defendant N Co., Ltd.
A. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire argument, it is recognized that the defendant NN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant N") is an immediate contractor pursuant to Article 44-2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and jointly and severally with the defendant M, who is an employee of the defendant M, the subcontractor, under which the defendant M et al. employed by the defendant M, is jointly and severally liable to pay each of the wages indicated in the "claim Amount" table in the attached Form No. 37 (1) of the Labor Standards Act and the interest for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the beginning date of each claim amount to the day of full payment.
B. As to this, Defendant N did not declare that Defendant M, a subcontractor, would be able to directly pay the instant wage to the Plaintiffs, and therefore, Defendant N did not have a duty to pay the instant wage to the Plaintiffs. However, Article 44-3(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that, “Where there is an order for payment finalized under Article 56 subparag. 3 of the Civil Execution Act and other title of debt corresponding thereto, such as a payment order, etc., that is, it shall be paid to an employee within the scope of the subcontractor’s obligation to pay the subcontractor the amount equivalent to the wages that the subcontractor should pay upon request of employees. In light of the circumstances of accepting the Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant M, a subcontractor, Defendant N is obligated to directly pay the Plaintiffs wages.
Defendant N’s assertion is rejected.
C. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant N are reasonable and all of them.