근로기준법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative director of D(ju) E in the fourth floor of the building in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who is engaged in the wave business employing 17 full-time workers.
1. Where an employer of the portion of the violation of the pre-announcement of dismissal intends to dismiss a worker, he/she shall make the pre-announcement at least thirty days, and where he/she fails to make the pre-announcement at least thirty days, he/she shall pay the ordinary wages for thirty days
Nevertheless, the Defendant (A) served as a director at the above company from March 3, 2008 to August 5, 2011 from the above company on August 5, 201.
The retirement worker F did not pay 6,602,870 won of ordinary wage for 30 days when dismissing the retired worker F without prior notice, and (b) on August 8, 2011, from the above company Incheon Branch to the date from March 3, 2008 to August 8, 2011, the Director-General is serving as the worker.
The retirement worker G did not pay 6,315,789 won of ordinary wages for 30 days while dismissing the retired worker G without prior notice.
2. (A) Around August 18, 2011, the Defendant was working in the said company as above in the part of the violation of money and valuables liquidation.
On August 2011, 201, the retiredF’s wages of KRW 927,410 and retirement allowances of KRW 19,263,690, annual paid leave allowance of KRW 8,143,30, and annual paid leave allowance of KRW 8,143,30 have not been paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties. (B) The Defendant is working at the above company on August 21, 201
8-month wages of G 1,419,350 won, retirement allowances 20,075,220 won, annual paid leave allowances 7,789,240 won, and annual paid leave allowances 7,789,240 won were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties
2. The facts charged in the instant case are premised on the premise that F and G are workers of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as D) operated by the Defendant. Accordingly, the issue of the instant case is whether F and G are workers of F and D (State).
In this regard, the same issue is as follows: D(State) and F and G verify the existence of the obligation of this Court 2012Gahap31840(the principal claim) and the confirmation of the invalidity of dismissal 2013Gahap30431(the counterclaim). < Amended by Act No. 11943, Jul. 1, 2013>