beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.11.07 2013고정1617

근로기준법위반등

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is an employer who operates D Co., Ltd. by employing 300 full-time workers in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

From February 1, 2010 to August 11, 2012, the Defendant did not pay the amount of KRW 1.5 million of wages of KRW 1.5 million on July 7, 2012, wages of KRW 1.5 million on August 2012, and retirement allowances of KRW 3 million on the date of payment, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without agreement on the extension of the due date.

(b) When an employer intends to dismiss (including dismissal for managerial reasons) a worker, he/she shall give the worker a notice of dismissal at least thirty (30) days, and if he/she did not give such notice 30 (30) days, he/she shall pay the worker ordinary wages for not less than thirty

The Defendant dismissed workers E without notice of dismissal on August 2012, 2012, and did not pay at least 1.5 million won, which is a 30-day ordinary wage, while dismissing workers E.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) Around 2008, E operated a H parking lot located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “H parking lot”) with a third party, which was long-term leased by the F from Guro-gu Office (hereinafter “H parking lot”) as a person holding a share in F.

(2) Around July 31, 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract for parking lot use of H parking lot E and the period of use, which were the representative of H parking lot, from August 1, 2008 to July 31, 2009, in order to use H parking lot as a bus bus notice of the company D (hereinafter “D”).

(3) Around January 5, 2009, the Defendant, as the representative of H parking lot, concluded a parking lot use contract again by setting the period of F’s private interest and the new representative of H parking lot from January 14, 2009 to January 13, 201.

(4) Since then, the Defendant and I had a dispute related to the lease contract and the right to operate the H parking lot, and the Defendant was well aware of Frelated persons for the legal measures and smooth resolution of the above dispute, and had been in front of I and I.