logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2013.12.12 2013고정587
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a business owner who has been engaged in the manufacturing industry with the trade name of “D” at the place of business located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu C, and is an employer.

The Defendant is employed as D workers from April 12, 2012 to May 25, 2012 at the construction site of a ship in the (ju) mine area located in Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-do.

The amount of KRW 611,430 for April 2012 and the amount of KRW 1,351,50 for May of the same year, which shall be paid to the retired victim E, was not paid within 14 days from the date of the above retirement without any agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment due date, and the total amount of KRW 27,757,100 for the wages to be paid to 30 employees, as described in the attached Table “the details of personal arrears money and valuables”, was not paid within 14 days from the date of each retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, E, G, and H in part;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of written agreements and power of attorney Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant only allowed F to use the name of F so that it can be used, and since the actual business owner who employed 30 above workers and carried on a business is F, the Defendant is not obliged to pay wages to the above workers.

2. According to the evidence examined earlier, the Defendant, as the representative of D, concluded a subcontract with F when receiving a subcontract for the above vessel structure work from the State, and (i) as a matter of overdue payment for the above workers, (ii) light, D, and (iii) above.

arrow