logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.05.17 2015노3494
근로기준법위반등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the F, G, and H (hereinafter “instant workers”) had a continuous work relationship, such as misunderstanding of facts, etc.

Although it is difficult to see that the instant workers and the instant workers were obliged to pay the annual paid leave allowance by concluding a comprehensive wage contract containing various allowances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Labor Standards Act due to the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits and the payment of annual paid leave allowance among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending

B. The sentencing of the court below is unfair because the sentencing of the court below is too excessive (the defense counsel's opinion submitted after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal shall be limited to the scope of supplement of the reasons for appeal specified in the reasons for appeal, and it shall not be judged separately with respect to the defendant's argument that is not entirely stated in the

A. Determination on the existence of continuous labor relations 1) The lower court based on the following circumstances, i.e., determination on the existence of continuous labor relations, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, i.e., ① the employee was working at the Defendant’s workplace on an average of 20 days a month; ② the employee of the instant case was completely severed from his labor relationship with the Defendant due to the settlement of retirement allowances and transition to regular workers, etc. falling under his/her tenure of office on August 2014; ③ the employee’s labor contract of the instant case was indicated only the commencement date in the contract period column and the termination date is a blank, ④ the salary of the instant employee was paid monthly at the 10th day of each month by multiplying the basic daily wage by the air air transport station, and the salary was paid monthly at the 10th day of each month, and ⑤ the employee was agreed to include allowances for holidays and annual leave allowances in addition to the basic daily wage; and ⑤ the employee did not work at the Defendant’s site, was notified to the head of the team, etc.

arrow