beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.09.26 2019고정44

근로기준법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Reasons

Criminal facts

The Defendant is an employer who employs a full-time worker as a branch of a Nowon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-gu.

1. When an employer intends to dismiss a worker, he/she shall give the advance notice of dismissal at least 30 days, and where he/she has not given such advance notice by 30 days, he/she shall pay the ordinary wages of 30 days;

Defendant on October 1, 2017, the same year at the same workplace.

6.1. From 1. to 200,000 won of an advance notice of dismissal allowance corresponding to 30 days’ ordinary wage was not paid when dismissing D without prior notice by sending text messages to D, “I need to find another workplace on an annual basis. I will work at low price.”

2. An employer who fails to deliver a written contract shall clearly state wages, contractual work hours, holidays, annual paid leaves, and other working conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree to workers when concluding the contract, and shall deliver written statements specifying matters concerning wages, contractual work hours, holidays, and annual paid leaves to workers;

Nevertheless, on June 1, 2017, the Defendant did not deliver a document stating matters such as wages, etc. when concluding a labor contract with the said worker D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the fact that the defendant dismissed the worker D without prior notice on October 1, 2017 is sufficiently recognized.

On August 30, 2017, workers D sent to the Defendant a message demanding that the Defendant would retire from office as “E” with the suspicion of embezzlement of oil.

On the following day, the defendant tried to see the suspected suspicion by telephone to D, and D has been subject to apology.