Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 931,715, totaling KRW 931,715 from April 2015 to August 2015, as indicated in the attached crime list, as well as KRW 186,343, G’s wage difference on April 1, 2015, which had been worked at the Friju regional headquarters in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul metropolitan regional headquarters”), on March 1, 2013.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there are grounds for dispute over the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., the employer should be deemed to have a considerable reason for failing to pay wages, etc., and it is difficult to find that the employer had an intention to commit a crime of violating Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there exists any grounds for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. should be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time of dispute over the grounds for refusal of payment, the grounds for the employer’s obligation to pay wages, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of its business, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., and it should not be determined ex post facto that the employer has the intention to commit a crime of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that the employer has the civil liability to pay wages, etc. (see, e.g

The Supreme Court held that a labor relationship between the parties to a labor contract is naturally terminated without separate measures, such as dismissal of an employer, according to the expiration of the period, in the following cases, which are recognized as recorded in the legal principles prior to the determination of the intention of violation of the Labor Standards Act: