In light of the fact that a copy of the minutes stating different contents concerning the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives on September 8, 201 is submitted, that the effect of the resolution was not discussed at the time of the above resolution, that the contents of the resolution in the above resolution were publicly announced on the apartment bulletin board, and that the instant resolution was already made based on the above resolution, it cannot be deemed that the above resolution constitutes a case where a significant and obvious defect exists in the procedure.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment on February 2012, 438,880 won for workers’ daily wage of 438,880 won (645,00 won for snow bonuses of 2012 + wage of 1,293,880 won for advance payment of 1,50,000 won for advance payment of - 522,000 won for workers’ female, and Song ○○’s annual bonus of 2012, 417,000 won for the snow bonuses of 2012, and 408,000 won for bonuses of 200, 400, 405, 400, 000 won for snow bonuses of 20, 2000, 000, 000 won for middle bonuses of 20, 25, 2015, 40, 25, 2015.

2. Determination

In a case where there are grounds for dispute over the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that there exists a considerable reason for the employer to not pay wages, etc., and it is difficult to find that the employer had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there exists any grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time of dispute over the grounds for refusing to pay wages, the grounds for the employer’s obligation to pay wages, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of its business, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts or circumstances are recognized. ① On September 8, 201, the council of occupants’ representatives referred to the agenda that the council of occupants’ representatives should pay a life-saving bonus to its employees. ② The management rules of the apartment of this case decided with the consent of a majority of the members of the council of occupants’ representatives (where two-thirds or more of the members of the council of occupants’ representatives are elected, referring to the number of elected members), and the council of occupants’ representatives of each Dong shall be able to exercise voting rights only when the council of occupants’ representatives is present at the council of occupants’ representatives (Articles 17, 27, and 28(1) and Article 28(4) provides that the resolution of the council of occupants’ representatives is absent, and that the resolution of ○○○ council of occupants’ representatives was invalid, ③ that constitutes the representative at the time of the council of occupants’ representatives’ representatives’ representatives, and ④ that of the above ○○ council of occupants’ representatives was signed at the meeting of 200.

In full view of the foregoing circumstances, it is recognized that the ○○○ was not present at the time of the council of occupants’ representatives as of September 8, 201, and that the ○○○○ was deemed to have expressed an opposing opinion. As such, the above resolution of the council of occupants’ representatives which requires the employees to pay a life-saving bonus is a serious and apparent defect that it is a violation of a quorum provision in the procedure. The defendant is recognized that the possibility of imposing liability for the crime of breach of trust, etc. against the occupants may not be ruled out in the event that a bonus is paid in the state of defect in the above resolution of payment of the bonus as the chairperson of the council of occupants’ representatives. Accordingly, it is recognized that the defendant had a considerable reason to refuse the payment of the bonus in this case, and it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 36

The court below is just in holding the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is no error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judges Maximum Beneficiaries