beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.04 2015고정123

근로기준법위반

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The Defendant and C are the joint representatives of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E in Eunpyeong-gu who run a construction business with seven full-time workers.

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, the suspect did not pay 13,350,000 won, including 2,850,000 won in March 24, 2014 of F retired from the said workplace as from February 16, 2014 to March 24, 2014, in total, 13,350,000 won in total, as shown in the attached crime list, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment between the parties, without agreement on the extension of the day of payment between the parties.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant merely lent his name to C to be registered as a business operator of E’s symptoms of business registration and did not establish an employment relationship with the employee, and thus, the Defendant is not an employer

3. Determination of employers under the Labor Standards Act ought to be made by comprehensively considering the direction, supervision, payment of remuneration, etc. based on actual labor relations, regardless of the type of contract or the content of relevant laws and regulations.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, namely, ① workers, including F, reported the business operator as C(E) from the time when the first overdue wage is overdue, and the actual operator of E in the Labor Office also stated as C(38 pages of the investigation record) and ② worked as E’s customer.

G In this Court, the G was unable to register the business operator in its name while operating the interior business from before C, and borrowed the name of the Defendant in its name.

was done.

E The operator of E is C and the defendant does not intervene in the operation at all.