근로기준법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Article 60(3) of the Labor Standards Act provides that "if an employer grants a paid leave for work for the first year of the worker, it shall be 15 days including the leave under paragraph (2), and if an employee has already used a paid leave under paragraph (2), the number of days of the paid leave shall be deducted from 15 days." However, this is merely an exception, and it cannot be interpreted that an employee may use a annual leave for the following year at any time at any time. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the seven retired workers of this case used a annual paid leave for the year 2014 in advance for the year 2013, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
Judgment
In a case where there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., the employer should be deemed to have a substantial reason for failing to pay wages, etc., and it is difficult to find that the employer had an intent to commit a crime of Article 36 or 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. should be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time when the dispute over the reason and grounds for refusal of payment, the grounds for the obligation to pay wages, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of business, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., and it should not be readily concluded that the employer has the intention to commit a crime of Article 36 or 109(1) of the same Act, on the ground that the employer has the civil liability for payment ex post facto, and the lower court should not readily conclude that the employee, including himself, was granted the Plaintiff’s annual leave on October 27, 2011;