logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.11.24 2015가단6141
임금
Text

1. The defendant, including the plaintiff (appointed party), shall make an individual statement on the details of the attached Form in arrears to the designated parties.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments as to the cause of the claim, it is acknowledged that the appointed parties including the plaintiff (appointed parties) (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") provided labor in the occupational category of the same detailed statement employed by the defendant during the period indicated in the service period column of the detailed statement on the attached sheet on the money and valuables in arrears, and that the defendant did not pay the plaintiffs wages as stated in the aforementioned detailed statement on the overdue wages column. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiffs unpaid wages and delay damages, barring any special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not receive progress payment from the same shipbuilding company, which is the main contractor, and did not pay wages to the plaintiffs. However, in this case where the plaintiffs sought wages under the labor contract with the defendant, even if the circumstances asserted by the defendant are acknowledged, the defendant's assertion is not a legal obstacle that unfairly makes the plaintiffs' claim. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money indicated in the aggregate column for each individual’s statement on the details of the attached amount in arrears, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act from March 18, 2015 to the date of full payment after the expiration of 14 days from the date of the plaintiffs’ provision of labor. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claim of this case is justified, and it

arrow