The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the user who is the representative of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (D2) in Yeongdeungpo-si, who has employed 12 full-time workers, and has been engaged in the construction business. The defendant is a direct contractor who subcontracted the construction project to G other than the constructor at the construction site of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul

Where a construction business is carried on two or more occasions, and a constructor who is not a constructor fails to pay wages to his/her workers, if the constructor fails to pay the wages to the workers he/she employs, the person directly responsible for the payment of wages shall be jointly and severally with the sewage constructor.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s sewage, did not pay KRW 48,494,00 as well as KRW 5,360,000 to H, who worked from November 3, 2015 to July 11, 2016 at the construction site of the F building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”), within 14 days from each retirement date, without agreement between the parties on the extension of payment date.

2. Determination

A. Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that “When a construction business has been contracted under Article 2(11) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for at least two occasions in the construction business, a sewage supplier who is not a constructor defined in Article 2(7) of the same Act fails to pay wages to his/her employees, shall be jointly and severally liable with a sewage supplier to pay wages to his/her employees.” Article 109(1) of the same Act provides that “A person who violates Article 44-2 of the same Act shall be punished.”

The prosecution instituted the prosecution of this case on the premise that the defendant falls under the direct contractor stipulated in Article 44-2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, I first examine whether the defendant falls under the direct contractor stipulated in Article 44-2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

B. The charged facts of this case are as follows.