The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Since 200, D, the father of the defendant, operated a driving school in the name of F in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and died around October 2005.

The Defendant, following D, was operating a private teaching institute. On January 30, 2009, the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government made a private teaching institute as a corporation in the name of H, a corporation, and operated a service business such as lectures when employing at least five full-time workers as a representative director.

Defendant (i) served in the said workplace from November 15, 200 to July 17, 201 at the same workplace, and (ii) served in the employees J during the period from February 7, 200 to July 17, 201 as annual paid leave allowances of KRW 3,781,81,818, retirement allowances of KRW 29,133,250, and ② annual paid leave allowances of KRW 3,761,914, retirement allowances of KRW 30,402,695, and ③ working in the said workplace from September 30, 201 to July 17, 201, the Defendant did not pay annual paid leave allowances of KRW 3,823,927, retirement allowances of KRW 2694,9785, etc. to the retired workers K within the agreed period of 1985 days from the date of extension of the period of retirement to July 17, 2011.

Judgment

In the evidence examined, prior to the preparation of the letter of delegation contract between the defendant and the petitioner (I, J, K) on July 20, 201, the petitioner received a fixed monthly wage without relation to the number of students, and most goods and facilities necessary for the lectures were provided by a private teaching institute. The labor income tax was collected at source, and the social insurance was borne by the private teaching institute, and the status of workers was recognized by the social security law.

From around 2009, the so-called 4 major insurance was interrupted due to business difficulties.

The circumstances such as this are recognized.

Then during that period the petitioner is more than the independent business operator

employee was in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages.

It is reasonable to view it.

On the other hand, if there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc.