beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.07 2017노4840

근로기준법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, the Defendant is only a representative under the name of the “DY club” (hereinafter “instant company”) at issue, and is not a de facto operator.

At the time, the actual operator of the instant business was “K” and both workers E and F claiming payment of wages were employees employed and supervised by K.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant on the premise that the employer (the employer) of the business of this case is the defendant. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the employer under the Labor Standards Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, on the basis of the change of the defendant and his defense counsel, we will examine whether the defendant is a representative in the name of lending only the name in relation to the operation, etc. of the business of this case, and whether the defendant was directly involved in the operation thereof.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant jointly operated the instant enterprise with K at least from the time of its establishment. Rather, in relation to the above workers, the status of “employer” under the Labor Standards Act should be recognized as “employer”.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles which affected the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(1) The Defendant was registered as a representative from the time of the establishment of the instant business, and accordingly, as a worker registered with the said business.