The meaning of and criteria for determining "business management officer", a type of employer prescribed in Article 15 of the former Labor Standards Act;

Article 15 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) (see current Article 2(1)2)

Supreme Court Decision 88Do1162 Decided November 22, 198 (Gong1989, 38) Supreme Court Decision 97Do813 Decided November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3907) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364 Decided May 11, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 1092)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Jeonju District Court Decision 2005No11 Decided May 31, 2007

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant 2’s ground of appeal is examined.

Article 15 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) provides that "the employer under this Act refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business management, or any other person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers." Here, a person in charge of business management refers to a person who is responsible for general business management and represents or acts on behalf of a business owner with comprehensive delegation from a business owner for all or part of business management. The Labor Standards Act does not limit the employer as a person in charge of duty to comply with each of the provisions of the same Act, but does not limit the employer as a person in charge of business management, etc. to a person in charge of business management, etc. to ensure the effectiveness of each of the provisions of the Labor Standards Act in the labor site, so the person in charge of business management is, in principle, responsible for the general business management, and is granted the authority and responsibility to perform each of the provisions of the Labor Standards Act systematically under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not necessarily required to exercise such authority (see Supreme Court Decision 197Do138.

In light of the above legal principles and records, even if Defendant 2, a joint representative director of new and old comprehensive construction company, delegated the joint representative authority to Defendant 1 and did not actually perform his duties, the court below found Defendant 2 guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the above company constitutes an employer who should be responsible for violating the duty of liquidation of money and goods in this case, since the authority or responsibility for the payment of wages, etc. granted by the above company is not extinguished. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the employer under the Labor Standards Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant 1’s appeal

Defendant 1 did not submit a statement of grounds of appeal within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any statement in the grounds of appeal, and thus the appeal shall be dismissed by decision pursuant to Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the appeal shall be dismissed by decision en bloc with Defendant 2’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)