Main Issues
Whether the director of the construction site falls under the "person who acts for the business owner" as prescribed in Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act.
Summary of Judgment
Even though the defendant did not pass through the field director of the construction company, if the defendant, under his own responsibility, has been engaged in the business of selecting, employing, and supervising the victims of this case by receiving the money for the name of wages from the company and paying it to the victims, it is reasonable to view that the defendant constitutes "a person who acts on behalf of the employer with respect to the matters concerning workers" in relation
[Reference Provisions]
Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Defendant
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No1789 delivered on July 28, 1983
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act, the term "employer" means a person who acts on behalf of an employer, not only an employer or a person in charge of business management, but also a person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to other matters concerning workers. As legally determined by the court below, the defendant was appointed as the Director of the Army Incidental Construction Site at the time of the Gyeonggi-gun of the Construction Company, and the defendant was responsible for the selection, employment, direction, and supervision of the victims and was engaged in the business of receiving money for the name of the above victims from the above company. If the defendant arbitrarily used the money received for the payment of wages from the above company to another purpose, and thus the victims of this case become unable to receive each wage, the defendant shall be deemed to be a person who acts on behalf of the employer with respect to the matters concerning workers even if the above victims were not merely the Director of the Construction Site, and thus, the decision of the court below convicting the defendant on the delayed payment of wages in this regard shall not be justified and against the opposing opinion.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)