logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.01 2017노2421
근로기준법위반등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) G is merely a part of the Defendant’s lending KRW 30 million to the Defendant and to monitor the company’s operational status from the investor’s standpoint, and is not an employee who actually provided labor.

2) H is not entitled to receive benefits until he/she recognized his/her ability to receive a notice of resignation on May 2016 due to insufficient business ability.

The work performed on June 20, 2016, and the retirement on June 20, 2016 agreed to receive only five-month benefits.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have had intention to pay for 6 months’ wages to H, and the unpaid wages should be excluded from the unpaid wages for 6 months.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable because the sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, G recognizes that it was a person who actually provided labor, and the intention to pay wages to H is sufficiently recognized, and there was no error in the calculation of the unpaid wages of H.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

1) Part concerning G: (i) monthly salary of KRW 1.8 million was set for G; and (ii) written a benefit ledger for G.

According to the G's wage ledger, G seems to have been also insured.

(2) G shall have been actually in charge of business management, etc. at an investigative agency and the original court.

The statements have consistently been made, and are reliable in their statements.

③ If G demands the Defendant to pay benefits sealed to the Defendant, the Defendant only changed the time to leave the circumstances, and did not raise any objection against the obligation to pay benefits themselves.

④ The Defendant was also aware by G in an investigative agency that G is a worker.

(5) G lends money to the defendant.

arrow