(a) Where he/she becomes a ground for exclusion from liability for an offense violating Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act;

(b) Whether the entire facilities of enterprises are liable to pay dismissal allowances to workers who lose their base due to transfer to others at auction;

A. In full view of the provisions of Articles 36 and 109 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer is naturally obligated to pay wages pursuant to Article 36 of the same Act once a labor relationship is established between the employee and the employee. Therefore, the failure to pay wages or delay in payment on the sole ground of the company’s depression should not be permitted by the Act. However, even if the employer fulfilled all gender and power, the employer was unable to prevent delayed payment or failure in payment of wages under the generally accepted social norms, and only if there are special circumstances under which it is no longer lawful act cannot be expected, the reason for rejecting liability for the crime violating Article 36 of the same Act is the ground for rejecting liability.

B. If an employer who runs an enterprise in the name of a legal entity lost the basis for workers by transferring the entire corporate facilities, which are the physical foundation of the legal entity, to another auction by the court, even though the employer did not take a disposition of closure of the legal entity business or a disposition of dismissal premised on the premise thereof, barring special circumstances, the employment relationship concerned shall be deemed terminated by the agreed retirement, barring special circumstances. In such a case, an employer, in addition to retirement allowances, has the duty to pay dismissal allowances to a person who did not give prior notice of dismissal within the legal period, unless he/she has obtained the approval of the Minister of Labor, unless he/she has taken such measures. Therefore,

(a) Articles 109, 36(b) and 110 and 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Byung-hwan

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No5350 decided Nov. 12, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

85 days out of detention days before the final appeal shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

(1) Wages under the Labor Standards Act refer to all money and valuables that the employer pays as the object of work (Article 18 of the same Act). Since these wages are part of production cost, or are all living cost in the worker's side, wages under Article 36 of the same Act may be paid directly to the worker in currency: Provided, That if there are special provisions in Acts and subordinate statutes or a collective agreement, wages may be partially deducted or paid by means other than currency. Wages shall be paid at least once a month: Provided, That this shall not apply to wages paid temporarily, allowances, and other equivalents, or those wages prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which are paid temporarily, provided that the principle of direct payment, total payment, monetary payment, and regular payment at least once a month is stated, and those who violate Articles 109 through 36 of the same Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won.

Therefore, it is too natural that an employer should pay the above wages if the labor relationship is established between the employee and the employee. Therefore, even if the company is a yellow situation, it is not easy to speak when the company is a yellow situation, and even if the company is absent, it would not allow the law to refuse to pay wages or delay in payment on the ground of that fact. However, even if the employer fulfilled all the sex and power, it is reasonable to view that the employer was unable to prevent delayed payment of wages or failure in payment of wages as a ground for the above crime liability, only if there are special circumstances under which the employer cannot expect any more lawful act, and it is reasonable to view that the above act constitutes a ground for the commission of liability.

According to the court below's decision in this case, the defendant employed 41 full-time workers and operated a real estate rental business, who is less than 49 workers, should not be paid a full-time wage for more than one year to which 49 workers are less paid, and it is clear that the defendant did not specifically state the special circumstances as seen above, and that he did not pay a full-time wage by iceing only his business depression, and it is obvious that the defendant did not pay a full-time rent for the crime as mentioned above, and therefore, the defendant's theory of criticism that the court below's decision is proper and proper

(2) If an employer who runs an enterprise in the name of a legal entity, transferred the entire corporate facilities, which are the physical foundation of the legal entity, to a third party through an auction at a court, and thereby has lost the worker's base, the employment relationship concerned shall be deemed terminated by agreement retirement, barring special circumstances, even though the employer did not take a measure of closure of the legal entity's business or a measure of dismissal premised on such a measure, barring special circumstances. Even in such a case, the employer is obligated to pay the dismissal allowance to a person who has failed to pre-announce the dismissal within the legal period, unless he/she has obtained the approval of the Minister of Labor, as well as retirement allowances with the nature of the later-paid wage, and the employer

No theory can occur without dissolution of a corporation, but it is an independent opinion, and it cannot be accepted.

(3) In addition, the theory of lawsuit emphasizes the inevitability of delayed payment of wages by emphasizing the defendant's corporate facilities subject to the auction disposition, and the illegality of the dividend by the auction court, and also imposes an attack on the sentencing of the court below. However, regardless of the circumstances of the lawsuit based on the records, the defendant has made the best efforts under social norms regardless of the circumstances of the lawsuit, or the improper measures taken by the auction court are not supported, and in this case where the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment less than 10 years, the grounds for unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground

This appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who are to include part of the number of detention days before and after the final appeal in the original sentence after the final appeal.

Justices Lee Byung-hee (Presiding Justice)