beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a corporation established for the purpose of restaurant business, etc., and Defendant C is the representative of the Defendant Company.
B. From September 5, 2012 to July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Company and worked at the Defendant Company’s business store located in the Hyundai Department Store D.
C. The Defendant Company did not pay the Plaintiff’s overtime allowance of KRW 292,822 for September 2012, KRW 341,626 for October 2012, KRW 329,425 for November 2012, KRW 353,827 for December 2012, KRW 341,626 for January 341, 2013, KRW 305,023 for February 2013, KRW 353,827 for March 2013, KRW 329,425 for April 329, KRW 341,626 for May 2013, KRW 341,626 for June 341, 2013, KRW 329, KRW 2939, KRW 5275, and KRW 540 for annual paid leave.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 4,310,998 won in total including overtime work allowance, annual paid leave allowance, etc., and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum for the Plaintiff from September 6, 2013 to December 15, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act, from the next day to the day of full payment.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought payment of the amount claimed, including retirement allowances, from the above overtime pay, and the Defendant Company is practically an individual company of Defendant C and the Plaintiff works in the workplace of the individual company of Defendant C, and the Defendant C also is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company as the Plaintiff’s employer.
However, retirement allowances have a duty to pay for a worker whose period of continuous employment is not less than one year, and it is different from the circumstances that the plaintiff's period of employment falls short of this, as seen in the above recognition, and that there was no prior notice of dismissal.