beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.02.06 2013노5061

근로기준법위반

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor, including G’s statement of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the defendant did not pay a fixed monthly wage to G as stated in the facts charged is sufficiently recognized. However, the court below acquitted the charges of this case on the ground that the court below did not have proof of a crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the facts charged in the instant case is an employer who runs a construction business by ordinarily employing 15 workers as the actual management owner of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) located under 706 of the building C in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 4,291,820 for April 1, 2012, and KRW 6,000 for May 2, 2012, as well as KRW 10,291,820 for the total amount of KRW 10,291,820 for the retirement of 3,4, and 4,000 for the metropolitan waterworks among the Government of the FIC in Nam-si, Namyang-si, Seoul, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment.

B. If there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, such as wages 1, it shall be deemed that there exists a considerable reason for the employer to not pay the wages, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the employer had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there are grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of the circumstances at the time of dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, such as the reason for refusal of payment, the ground for the employer’s obligation to pay, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of the business, and other matters, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. Furthermore, even if