beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.09.18 2015고정973

근로기준법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who employs three full-time workers in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and operates D.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 2,709,677 of January 2015 to workers E, who were employed by the foregoing Association from November 25, 2014 to January 21, 2015, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties concerned.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of employment contract Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts, and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant and his defense counsel caused damage to the defendant and the Association by the act of impairing the honor of the defendant and obstructing the work of the F separately operated by the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant did not pay wages to E. Thus, this constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

2. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to deem that E was a tort as alleged by the defendant, and even if the damage claim against the defendant was caused by the tort against E due to the above tort, since the worker's wages should be paid in full directly to the worker, the worker's loans or claims based on the worker's tort except the excess paid-in refund claim, which the employer has against the worker, should not offset the worker's wage claim.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Do2168 delivered on October 13, 1999). Thus, the above circumstance alone alone makes it difficult to recognize the reasonableness of the Defendant’s failure to pay wages in light of its purpose and method.