beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.08.22 2017고정2597

근로기준법위반

Text

Of the facts charged in this case, the details of the money and valuables in arrears for each individual shall be stated in 1 to 12, and 14 each worker per year.

Reasons

The acquittal portion

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a direct contractor C of the subcontracting construction work after being awarded a contract for a new construction work for the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government B, and C is an individual contractor who has been awarded a subcontract for the said panel construction work.

Where a construction business is conducted two or more times a contract under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, if a subcontractor who is not a constructor under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the same Act fails to pay wages to his/her workers, the immediate upper tier contractor is jointly and severally liable with the subcontractor to pay the wages to the workers employed by the subcontractor, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the wages to the subcontractor, the defendant did not pay the total amount of wages of 19,65,000 won to the 13 workers in arrears of attached Form C used by the subcontractor within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement

2. Determination

A. If there is a ground for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that there is a reasonable reason that the employer has not paid such wages. Thus, it shall be difficult to find that the employer had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of the grounds for refusal of payment, the grounds for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, all other matters such as the purpose of the business, and all other circumstances at the time of dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., and it shall not be concluded that the employer has an intention to commit a violation of Articles 109(1) and 3

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1539, Jun. 28, 2007; 2010Do14693, Oct. 27, 2011); and the same.