beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the plaintiff's assertion regarding the application of the rate of increase in wages is not sufficient to accept the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff and the defendant's argument are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the determination of the plaintiff and the defendant's newly emphasized or new argument, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. From the date of wage payment to March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 2,613,690,00,00 from the date of wage payment to March 9, 2015. (2) The fact that the Defendant’s determination is identical to the fact that the amount unpaid to the Plaintiff is indicated in the “paid amount” column in the attached Table, is as follows. The Defendant’s wage payment date for the Plaintiff is the 18th day of each month, or that the fact that the Defendant’s wage payment date for the Plaintiff is no dispute between the parties, or that it is recognized by adding the entire purport of pleadings to the items in subparagraphs A through 41.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum total of KRW 1,585,922, calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of entry in the attached Table’s “integrative date” column for the attached Table to March 9, 2015.
B. The Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay is 1) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case until March 9, 2015, which is the date of receiving the complaint of this case, to the day of complete payment. 2) The damages for delay in the monetary obligation of relevant legal doctrine constitutes the damages for delay due to the discharge of the monetary obligation and the obligation for which the due date is not specified. Thus, the obligor’s claim for damages for delay is filed against the obligee.