The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a representative director D (main) in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who ordinarily employs 2,000 workers and operates a temporary work agency business.

The Defendant worked as temporary agency workers from the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government EF department stores to March 1, 2012 to March 4, 2012, and did not pay the amount of KRW 425,440 in March 2012 to the retired G workers within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. 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 considerable reason for the employer to not pay the wages, etc. so it is difficult to recognize that the employer had the intent to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) 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 reason for the employer's refusal of payment, the ground 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. Then, since the employer's civil liability for payment is recognized ex post facto, it shall not be readily concluded that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14693 Decided October 27, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1539 Decided June 28, 2007, etc.). As to the instant case, G entered into an employment contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”) and was dispatched to F department store H from March 1, 2012 to drive duties, and I said I said I would continue to serve in the said department store on April 201 and around the 19th day of the same month.