logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.01.09 2017나10587
임금등
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. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is about the 2.B of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

- Paragraph 3 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of using the foregoing paragraph as follows. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A) The Defendant’s calculation based on the monthly average wage of 65,624.67 won (i.e., total wage of 6,037,470 won ± 100,000 won for each month from November 2012 to May 2015, and the fact that the Defendant did not pay 882,380 won for June 2015 does not conflict between the parties. (ii) With respect to unpaid retirement allowances, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of unpaid retirement allowances is 65,624.67 won for the period of the last three months (from March 8, 2015 to June 9, 2015 ± 6,037,470 won ± 92 days) 】 18,182,528 won for each month from May 2015 ± 360 days before the retirement date ± 37,371 days before the retirement date ± 360 days before the Plaintiff’s retirement date ± 365 days before the retirement date.

In full view of the purport of each statement in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the defendant prepared the business guidelines or rules for the management of employees’ work, etc., and accordingly prepared and submitted a daily report, account books, and daily reports, etc. Based on this, the defendant prepared the business status table by the date of the plaintiff. Based on this, the defendant was found to have paid to the plaintiff for the three-month period before the plaintiff's retirement, which served as the basis for calculating the retirement benefits in this case, and it is recognized that the amount exceeds the amount that the plaintiff used as the basis

Then, the plaintiff.

arrow