An employer who violates the duty to specify working conditions shall, when concluding a labor contract, specify the wages, prescribed working hours, holidays, annual paid leave, etc. to the workers and deliver a written document specifying the matters therein.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not specify wages, prescribed working hours, holidays under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, annual paid leave under Article 60 of the same Act, and other working conditions under Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act when concluding an employment contract with E working in the above workplace.

B. The Defendant, in the foregoing place of business, did not pay KRW 860,560, monthly wages of July 1, 201, KRW 1,430,280, monthly wages of KRW 715,140, and monthly wages of KRW 3,005,980 within 14 days after retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of payment period.

2. The Defendant’s assertion is merely merely an investor of the instant friendship, and F is a “actual manager,” and the Defendant is not an employer under the Labor Standards Act of E.

3. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant is a de facto manager of the instant friendship, as described in the facts charged.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone only recognizes that the Defendant was part of the Defendant’s participation in the operation of the instant private letter as an investor, and that the Defendant was an actual manager under the Labor Standards Act.

First of all, in order to carry on the instant friendship business, F leased a building and carried out remodeling works.

E also, through F, the work was conducted in the instant Sariana.

(b)F is insufficient to cover its own funds.