beta
(영문) 대법원 1983. 6. 28. 선고 83도1090 판결

[근로기준법위반][집31(3)형,172;공1983.8.15.(710),1160]

Main Issues

Whether a director who does not supervise construction works and a director at the site falls under a business operator under Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act (negative)

Summary of Judgment

Although the defendant was a director of the company and the director at the site of the commercial building construction, the director's supervision was mainly reported by the non-indicted representative, and the representative director was paid through the non-indicted representative. Since the representative director escaped due to the default on checks, etc., if the defendant merely investigate and confirm the obligations such as the unpaid wages for the post-management, the defendant cannot be said to be a person in charge of business management under Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act or a person who acts on behalf of the business owner with respect to the matters concerning the worker.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No6618 delivered on March 11, 1983

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, although the defendant and the director of the non-indicted 1 corporation and the director of the non-indicted 3 corporation and the director of the non-indicted 3 corporation performed by the non-indicted 77 corporation, the construction supervision of the non-indicted 3 was mainly reported to be entrusted by the representative director non-indicted 2, and the wages, etc. were paid by the non-indicted 3 through the non-indicted 3, but there was only fact that the non-indicted 2, the above representative director of the non-indicted 2, who escaped from the non-indicted 3 corporation to the non-indicted 2, in early December 1980, investigation and confirmation of the defendant's

Therefore, the decision of the court below that supported the verdict of innocence of the court of first instance is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle, such as the theory of lawsuit, since the defendant cannot be said to be a person in charge of business management under Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act or a person who acts on behalf of the employer on matters concerning workers.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)

심급 사건
-서울형사지방법원 1983.3.11선고 82노6618
본문참조조문