logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.04.14 2016노5502
근로기준법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the statement at the investigative agency and court of H’s grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency, etc., and the Defendant’s investigative agency, etc., the construction cost unpaid on the payment date to H who is the sewage-grade, exceeds the unpaid wage amount, thereby H was unable to pay the said wage to the employees.

However, the court below found the defendant not guilty by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the E representative director of the company E in the third floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, who is a party directly subcontracted to H, the actual representative of G, while performing the construction of the F building in Suwon-si F, Suwon-si.

Where a project is carried out through several tiers of contracts, if a sewage supplier fails to pay wages to workers due to a cause attributable to a direct supplier, the immediate upper-tier supplier shall be jointly and severally liable with the sewage supplier.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay 35,00,000 won or more of the subcontract term ingredients under the contract without justifiable grounds, and did not pay 19,380,000 won of the total wages of 7 workers employed by H, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date on which the cause for payment occurred, without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment date.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, proven that H was unable to pay the instant workers wages on December 2, 2014 due to the Defendant’s fault, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the evidence presented by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient.

The defendant was acquitted on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) E, upon introduction by J around August 19, 2014, is a new construction of the F Building in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (the second floor above ground, the sixth floor above ground, and the rooftop).

arrow