logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.05.22 2018나318912
임금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

1. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the part which is dismissed or added.” Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The first instance judgment’s “wages” of the first instance judgment No. 9 is regarded as “wages and retirement allowances”.

B. 3-B of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

The entry of the part of the claim shall be as follows:

Since the provisions of the Labor Standards Act on retirement allowances provide for the lowest limit of the amount of retirement allowance to be paid to the retired employee, there exists a separate agreement between the labor and management to choose not to base the calculation of the amount of retirement allowances which may be included in the average wage under the Labor Standards Act in light of the nature of the benefits, and if the amount of retirement allowances calculated under such agreement exceeds the lowest limit guaranteed under the Labor Standards Act, such agreement shall not be deemed null and void as it violates Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act, and such separate agreement may not be made impliedly (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40538, Dec. 11, 2003). In this case, the defendant uses the "ordinary wage" more limited than the Labor Standards Act by excluding family allowance and the amount of monthly average remuneration pursuant to the collective agreement and the wage agreement, and then calculate and pay it based on the calculation of the amount of retirement allowances, and all of the labor and the defendant in this case did not have any special agreement on the amount of retirement allowances before the lawsuit in this case.

C. 8th of the judgment of the first instance.

arrow