근로기준법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent.
1. The court below's decision on the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative B, was an employer who was engaged in landscaping business with 20 full-time workers in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si C.
The Defendant is working in the foregoing workplace from May 15, 201 to June 15, 2011.
Withdrawn’s wage of KRW 494,00, E’s wage of KRW 37,000,000, was not paid within 14 days from the time when the grounds for the payment arose without agreement between the parties concerned regarding the extension of the due date.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged:
① From August 1, 2010 to September 26, 201, the Defendant: (a) had a place of business in the Sii-si F; and (b) had a business registered as “G” with the trade name; and (c) had conducted landscaping construction business.
From July 1, 2010 to September 26, 201, H, who was the Dong-gu of the Defendant, had each place of business in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, J and registered the business as “B” and had the same type of business as the Defendant.
The Defendant and H, respectively, ordered the workers belonging to themselves to perform the other party's work, and have difficulty in assisting each other's business, but even in that case, the employer to which the workers belong provided the benefits to the worker upon receiving the benefit from the other party.
2. D and E received the introduction of a human resources presentation office, and conducted landscaping works at an enterprise located in So-gu, So-called So-called, So-called, So-called, Seo and E were mainly ordered by H to receive job instructions from H, and D was paid from H.
(E) The E did not receive any benefit. (3) D and E heard the speech that they should file a complaint against a representative who is not the president, and filed a complaint against the Defendant.
C. From May 15, 201 to June 15, 2011, a person who used D and E with the trade name “B” in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Busan for a period from May 15, 201 to June 15, 201 is H, and otherwise, the Defendant is D and E as alleged in the facts charged.