beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 28,241,346 and KRW 13,50,000 among them.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as follows: “E is subject to a summary order of KRW 3 million on or around February 1, 2013 in the Daegu District Court Branch of Magu District Court Decision 2013No2050, Jun. 19, 2013; “E is subject to a summary order of KRW 3 million on or around February 1, 2013; on the summary order, a request for formal trial was made under the Daegu District Court Branch of Magu District Court Decision 2013No2050, Jun. 19, 2013; after the above appellate court was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million on or after the reduction of the fine in the above appellate trial, E is subject to a final judgment of the above appellate court; “E is subject to a summary order of KRW 20,000,000”; and “E is subject to the provisions of the main sentence of the Civil Procedure Act 200,201.”
2. Matters modified;
F. The Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations expired for the part of the Plaintiff’s non-paid wage claim three years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, as to which the statute of limitations expired.
In light of the above, the Defendant’s claim for wages is extinguished by prescription, unless exercised within three years. Of the Plaintiff’s minimum wage difference, overtime work allowance, and annual unused allowance, the maturity period for payment up to July 2009 is prior to August 8, 2009, and it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on August 29, 2012, which was three years after the said lawsuit was filed.
However, approval as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription is established when an obligor who is a party to the benefit of extinctive prescription indicates that he/she would lose his/her right due to the completion of extinctive prescription or his/her agent is aware of the existence of such right. Therefore, the method of indication does not require any form, but does not explicitly state any form, and the implied recognition is expressed on the existence and amount of the obligation by the obligor.