When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

When an employer intends to dismiss a worker, he/she shall give the worker an advance notice at least thirty days prior to the dismissal, and when he/she fails to give an advance notice at least thirty days, he/she shall pay the ordinary wages for not less than thirty days.

Nevertheless, on April 6, 2015, the Defendant dismissed workers B who were employed as drivers on April 6, 2015 at the above workplace without a prior notice of dismissal at around 07:40 on April 20, 2018, and did not immediately pay 2,200,000 won of ordinary wages for 30 days with a prior notice of dismissal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness B’s statutory statement;

1. Article 110 of the relevant Act and Articles 110 subparagraph 1 and 26 of the Labor Standards Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Grounds for judgment of conviction under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., that the defendant does not want the punishment against the defendant any longer under the mutual consent between B and B, and that the defendant has no same criminal record);

1. The defendant's gist of the lawsuit is that the defendant did not dismiss B, but voluntarily resigns, and therefore, the defendant did not constitute a violation of the Labor Standards Act pursuant to the payment of advance notice of dismissal allowance.

2. The grounds for termination of the employment contract can be classified into retirement made by the employee’s intention or consent, dismissal made by the employee’s unilateral will against the employee’s will, automatic termination made regardless of the employee’s intent, and dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the termination of all the labor contract relations, regardless of the name or procedure in which the employee is actually disadvantageous to the workplace.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da54210, Oct. 26, 1993). Various evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, in particular, B’s investigation agencies or this court’s statements.