beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 95,232,876 as well as its annual 5% from March 15, 2019 to April 24, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 1, 1986, the Plaintiff joined and worked in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and retired from office as of December 31, 2014.
B. On March 14, 2019, a decision was rendered to commence rehabilitation procedures for the non-party company, and the Defendant, the representative director of the non-party company, appointed as the administrator of the non-party
(In Incheon District Court 2019 Gohap4). [Ground of recognition] / [Ground of non-satisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was an employee of the non-party company, and thus the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement allowance constitutes a priority claim. The scope of the retirement allowance claim is a claim with 20% per annum from January 15, 2015, which is 148 million won and 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act. If the Plaintiff’s claim for delay payment was made by the non-party company, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 148 million won per annum from October 27, 2015 to the day of full payment.
B) The starting point of the statute of limitations for retirement allowance claims is January 1, 2018, which is the day following the date of retirement from the non-party company D, which is substantially the same as the non-party company, and even when considering January 1, 2015, which is the day following the retirement date of the non-party company's retirement, the non-party company acknowledged the payment obligation after the expiration of the statute of limitations and renounced the benefits of the expiration of the statute of limitations. 2) The plaintiff did not constitute a worker as a registration director of the non-party company. The starting point of the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's retirement allowance claims in this case was January 1, 2015, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case three years after the expiration of the three years thereafter, the claim for retirement allowance was extinguished, and even if the waiver of the statute of limitations for the non-party company's retirement allowance claims is recognized, the non-party