beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.02.08 2018고정810

근로기준법위반

Text

Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is not guilty of violating the Labor Standards Act with respect to workers B.

Reasons

Parts of innocence

1. The summary of the facts charged and D are those who are the main managers of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building F, and are full-time workers and run software development business.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, in collusion with D, the Defendant is working in the same workplace from January 6, 2017 to March 31, 2017.

The 11,671,319 won in total of the wages B was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Determination

A. Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act are employers, and Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the term “employer” refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers.

Here, the term "person in charge of business management" means a person who is responsible for general business management and represents or represents external business with a comprehensive delegation from an employer for all or part of the business management (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do813, Nov. 11, 1997); and the term "other person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers" refers to a person who is given specific authority and responsibility from an employer with respect to matters relating to the determination of working conditions, such as personnel affairs, wages, welfare, labor management, etc., or orders, direction, or direction, supervision, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6924 delivered on November 14, 1989, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364 Delivered on May 11, 2006). (b)

This Court has duly adopted and examined the evidence as follows.