If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant is the employer who lent a comprehensive construction license of C Co., Ltd. and performed the finishing work of the E hotel in Jeju.

The defendant is an employee of the defendant at the site of the completion of the above hotel from January 2008 to March 1, 2008.

A retired worker F was not paid KRW 1080,000,000 for nine days, within 14 days from the date on which the cause for the payment occurred without an agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and G;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts and Articles 109(1) and 36 of the same Act concerning the selection of fines

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the work site shall be asserted that the defendant is not an employer because he/she was merely dismissed at the

The term "employer" under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Labor Standards Act includes not only the employer or the person in charge of business management, but also the "other person who acts on behalf of the employer with respect to matters relating to workers."

According to the above evidence in this case, it is recognized that the Defendant: (a) as the site manager at the instant site, ordered construction supervision and labor; (b) as the Defendant introduced the Defendant through G, the Defendant was ordered to work at the instant site; and (c) the Defendant received construction payment from H Co., Ltd. and paid it to the construction company, etc. working at the site.

According to this, the defendant is deemed to fall under the "person who acts on behalf of the business owner with respect to matters concerning workers" and the above argument is rejected.