(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.02.03 2013가단213129

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.02.03 2013가단213129

수당환수 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On May 24, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the cause of the claim was serving as the head of the Plaintiff’s business division, and the Defendant, together with the employees of the business division during the conference, expressed a unilateral and collective resignation and retired from the office.

Although the Defendant unilaterally resigned as above, the Plaintiff returned the instant vehicle (C; hereinafter “instant vehicle”) owned by the Plaintiff, which was provided and used for business activities by the Plaintiff, to the around August 8, 2013.

The Defendant used the instant vehicle without title for 76 days after his retirement even though the labor contract relationship with the Plaintiff was terminated due to the Defendant’s unilateral resignation, and incurred damages equivalent to the instant vehicle fee during the said period.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of 16,188,000 won (per day user fee 213,000 won x 76 days) as unjust enrichment or damages.

2. In full view of the facts and circumstances as delineated below, the defendant, who is an employer who is not a unilateral resignation of the defendant, was unable to continue to work normally due to the unilateral declaration of dismissal of the plaintiff representative director D, who is an employee, and the above dismissal measures. On the other hand, the defendant, who was provided reward in accordance with the achievement of business performance prior to the occupancy of the vehicle of this case and was in possession of not only business but also personal use, renounced the dispute over the above dismissal measures, and filed a claim for wages and retirement allowances which were unpaid as of the date of retirement according to the above dismissal, and returned the vehicle of this case. After the above dismissal, the defendant gained profits from the vehicle of this case without any legal grounds for the period prior to the date of returning the vehicle of this case after the above dismissal.

(1) The Plaintiff is a car rental business operator with respect to the instant vehicle.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.12.11 2018나33525

-수원지방법원 2014.11.13 2013가단220513

-인천지방법원 2016.02.03 2014가단257843

-부산지방법원 2016.01.08 2015노3791

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.09.22 2016고단488