beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2014.11.14 2014고정61

근로기준법위반

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant ordinarily employs 28 workers under the trade name of “C” in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do.

An employer shall grant 15-day paid leave to any worker who has worked for not less than 80 percent of a year, and one day’s paid leave for each two-year continuous work training in excess of the first one year shall be granted to any worker who has worked for not less than three consecutive years.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay a 16-day annual leave of absence for work from April 26, 2009 to April 25, 2010; 17-day annual leave of absence for work from April 26, 201 to April 25, 2011; and 17-day annual leave of absence for work from April 26, 201 to April 25, 201, from April 26, 201 to April 25, 2012 to April 25, 201, respectively.

2. The right to annual paid leave of an employee on the market is naturally established if an employee satisfies the requirements of Article 48(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5245 of Dec. 31, 1996), but the employee’s right is specifically realized upon his/her employer’s lawful exercise of the right to annual paid leave upon his/her request, and it does not require the employer’s active act to grant paid leave. Thus, the elements of the crime of violation of the above provision are acts of violating the duty of omission that the employer does not interfere with the employee’s exercise of the right to annual paid leave. Thus, the above crime is established if the employee interferes with the annual paid leave of an employee without exercising the right to change the due time, even if the employee requested the annual paid leave, and the employer does not recognize the annual paid leave itself, thereby hindering the exercise of the right to designate the time in advance.