(영문) 수원지방법원 2008.1.11.선고 2007나17199 판결

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the judgment against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ordering the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) to pay in excess of the amount calculated by the rate of 615, 181 won and 5% per annum from August 1, 2005 to January 11, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) to pay in excess of the amount calculated by the rate of 615, 181 won and the amount of 5% per annum from August 1, 2005 to the date of full payment, is revoked, and the Defendant’s claim for

2. The remaining appeal against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s Park Jong-young and the appeal against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remaining designated parties are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remaining designated parties and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff). The 30% of the total costs of the lawsuit between the Appointed and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is borne by the Appointed-si, and the 70% of the total costs of the lawsuit between the Selected and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

(a) Main claim;

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”): (a) KRW 624,872; (b) KRW 851,281; (c) KRW 1,087,560; and (d) KRW 322,037; (b) KRW 322,969; and (c) KRW 56,96; and (d) KRW 1,128,96; and (c) KRW 55% per annum with respect to each of the above amounts to the Appointed-si to the Appointed-si; (d) KRW 851,281; and (e) KRW 1,087; and (e) KRW 5,037; and (e) KRW 322,969; and (e) KRW 1,28,966; and (e) KRW 5% per annum with respect to each of the above amounts from August 1, 2005 to the date of delivery of the instant complaint.

(b) Counterclaim;

The Selected shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 1, 465, 500 and KRW 1,080 among them, KRW 500 from November 8, 2004, KRW 385, and KRW 00 from December 24, 2004 to the delivery date of each of the counter-claim in this case, and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the principal lawsuit shall be revoked, and each of the claims of the plaintiff and the designated parties corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Scope of the trial of the political party;

In the first instance court, the plaintiff and the designated parties filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of unpaid wages, and the defendant filed a claim against the designated parties, as a counterclaim, the court of first instance accepted the claim by the plaintiff and the designated parties, and the counterclaim by the defendant.

Since the court of the trial appealed only to the defendant, the court of the trial will decide only on the claim part of the unpaid wages of the plaintiff and the designated parties against the defendant.

2. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2004, the Defendant acquired the labor relationship of workers under his control while taking over the business of the event of the event of the event of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company.

- Article 2 Composition of Wages

1. ① Monthly salary 1, 200, 00 won ( = base salary 567, 260 won + Monthly salary 20,080 won + 612, 660 won (including legal and contractual allowances) for monthly allowances

(2) The statutory allowances, such as overtime allowances, and agreed allowances, shall be comprehensively calculated in consideration of the special characteristics of the operation and maintenance of a tourism company, and shall cause the parties to an agreement and shall not raise any objection thereto.

(3) A holiday allowance for working on a monthly basis or longer (26 days) and a monthly allowance for working on a monthly basis shall be paid in comprehensive calculation and agreed between the parties concerned.

Article 3(3) The parties agree that the allowances for other extended working hours, night work hours, etc. except for basic working hours under a comprehensive calculation contract shall be included in the allowances of Article 2.

B. The Plaintiff and the designated parties, who are workers, provided the Defendant with labor for the following periods. They did not receive extension and night work allowances, monthly allowance and annual allowance from the Defendant, as stated below:

A person shall be appointed.

C. In addition, the Appointer provided the Defendant with labor from August 1, 2004 to December 23, 2004. The Appointer provided the Defendant with labor. The amount of KRW 500,000 out of the monthly salary of November 2004, 1,500 among the monthly salary of December 1, 2004, 580, 500 out of the amount of monthly salary of 1,50,500 among the amount of monthly salary of 1,50,080, and 7,060,060 were not paid for the monthly salary of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination as to the extension of the remaining designated parties except for the Appointed Masan (hereinafter referred to as "the remaining designated parties in the determination of this item") and night work allowances

If the remaining designated parties seek payment of overtime and night work allowances provided to the Defendant before entering into a comprehensive wage system, the Defendant shall appoint the remainder.

The Defendant entered into an inclusive wage system with the event that the limited partnership company was held and the event that the company was held.

A. On March 1, 2004, when taking over the event of △△△ branch of a limited partnership company, acquired the employment relationship of the comprehensive wage system for the remaining designated parties as it is. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was not obliged to pay overtime and night work allowances to the rest of the designated parties, on April 2004 or February 2005, under the comprehensive wage system already implemented even before concluding the comprehensive wage system with the remaining designated parties.

On April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff, the Selection-gu, the Plaintiff, the △△-gu, the △△-gu, and the △△-gu entered into a comprehensive wage system with the Defendant on April 16, 2004. On February 28, 2005, the designated parties entered into the comprehensive wage system with the Defendant on February 28, 2005, as seen earlier. However, prior to April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Selection-gu, the △-gu, the △-gu, the △-gu, the △-gu, and the △-gu, the maximum amount of the wage system, as well as the fact that the △-gu, on or before February 28, 2005, entered into the comprehensive wage system with each other or between the events of the limited partnership and the △-gu, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the remaining designated parties did not enter into a comprehensive wage system with the Defendant before entering into the said comprehensive wage system. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay each extension and night work allowance to the Plaintiff and the appointed parties up to April 15, 2004, and to pay each of them up to February 27, 2005 to the designated parties, as well as to February 27, 2005. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay 608,032 won to the Plaintiff as extension and night work allowances ( = 443,78 + 164,244), 591,281 won to the Selection, 379, 6831, 283, 2831 + 281, 481, 379, 2831, 298, 297, 374, 374, 47, 257, 47

252, 226 won ( = 133, 011 + 119, 215) and damages for delay are liable to pay them.

B. Determination on the annual and monthly leave allowances of the Plaintiff and the designated parties

The plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs in this item") asserted that, if the comprehensive wage system includes annual and monthly leave allowances, the workers' annual and monthly leave rights are deprived, but such comprehensive wage system agreement is null and void, and that the defendant should pay the plaintiffs the unpaid annual or monthly leave allowances, the defendant entered into a comprehensive wage system with the plaintiffs, and accordingly, the defendant had already completed the payment of annual and monthly leave allowances by causing the plaintiffs to pay the monthly salary which includes the above allowances.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s comprehensive wage system is valid for the monthly wage system, and even if the monthly wage system is generated only when the Plaintiffs worked for the period prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, it can be acknowledged that the monthly wage system included in the monthly wage system in light of all the circumstances, and it cannot be deprived of the Plaintiffs’ right to monthly wage due to the aforementioned comprehensive wage payment system. In this case, the purport of the comprehensive wage system is to respect the Plaintiffs’ annual wage system where it is difficult to measure the actual working hours or where it is necessary to calculate the monthly wage system, and it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to use the comprehensive monthly wage system in light of the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiffs’ annual wage system and the monthly wage system are not included in the monthly wage system in the monthly wage system, and it is also difficult for the Plaintiffs to calculate the monthly wage system in the form of the monthly wage system and the monthly wage system, and it is also difficult for the Plaintiffs to use the comprehensive monthly wage system in advance, regardless of the need to do so.

However, as seen above, the designated person Park Jong-young provided labor from March 1, 2004 to October 26, 2004, and the continuous period of employment does not exceed one year (90 percent). Thus, Article 59(1) of the former Act (amended by Act No. 6974 of September 15, 2003, which was amended by Act No. 6974 of September 15, 2003, which was amended by Act No. 6974 of September 15, 2003, must be employed to the defendant after July 1, 2008, pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda. Therefore, the plaintiff's head should apply to the case of Park Jong-young-ri, the defendant does not have a duty to pay his annual allowance to the selected person, and the reason for the appointment of his annual allowance is not that the defendant does not have any duty to do so.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff monthly leave allowances of KRW 16,840, KRW 23,90 to the Selection-si, KRW 7,060 to the Selection-si, KRW 284,710 to the Selection-si, KRW 284,710 ( = 48, 610 + 236, 100), KRW 14,120 to the Mari-si, and KRW 876,740 (= 58, 340 + 818, 400) to the Selection-si, and the amount of damages for such event.

C. Determination as to the claim for unpaid wages on November 1, 2004 and December 12, 2004

(1) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,080 won, 500 won, and the delayed damage to △△△.

(2) As to this, the defendant, the above 1,080, 50 won, was the amount that the Appointed shall be borne by the Appointed, among the damages for the accidents that occurred on November 7, 2004, and the defendant deducted part of the monthly salary on November 1, 2004 with the Appointed's consent. As such, the defendant asserted that the Appointed did not have an obligation to pay the above amount, so the defendant is obligated to pay the worker directly. Thus, the worker's wage should not be offset against the worker's wage claim. Further, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not have any reason to acknowledge that part of the amount of the monthly salary on November 7, 2004, which was paid by the Appointed, is insufficient to acknowledge that the above amount of the monthly salary on December 12, 2004 is deducted from the defendant's wage claim on the ground of the employer's loan or tort against the worker.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 624, 872 won ( = 608, 032 + 16, 840), 615, 181 won ( = 591, 281, 283, 900), 1,087, 560 won ( = 1,080, 500 + 7, 060 + 060), 322,037 won ( = 37, 327 + 284, 710), and 569, 186, 284, 286, and 286, respectively, to the plaintiff and 10,000 won, calculated on 10,000,000 from 1,000 to 2,000,000 won per annum, calculated on 1,000 won per annum, 2,000 won per annum.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff and the selected person's claims are accepted due to reasons, and the designated person's claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed due to reasons. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claims of the plaintiff and the selected person's claims of the plaintiff and the designated person's name, the Dom, the Dom, the Y, the Y, the Y, the Y, the YY, and the YY are justified as the conclusion is just. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the part of the claims of the designated person's Park Jong-young is partially unfair, and the defendant's appeal against this is partially accepted.