(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.07.10 2014노23 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.07.10 2014노23

근로기준법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant is not a worker D's employer, and D's employer is a representative director of the LABC, but the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that he is a user of D's employer, has erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the instant facts charged is an auditor and a manager of the Co., Ltd. in Kimpo-si, who operates wholesale and retail business using 11 full-time workers. The Defendant worked in the said workplace from April 27, 2013 to August 23, 2013, and did not pay KRW 2,00,000,000 in August 2013 to retired from the said workplace within 14 days from the date on which the cause for the payment occurred, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment of wages.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the evidence indicated in its holding.

C. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of first instance on the assertion of mistake of facts on the party deliberation, the defendant owns 30% of the shares of the company of this case, and is in charge of marketing and management of the business of Gmaart operated by the company of this case, the representative director of the company of this case holds 70% of the shares of the company of this case, D was employed as F, and the defendant was employed as F, upon employment of D, the defendant was employed by F with F's settlement, the ordinary F made a final decision on the important matters of the company of this case and the above Et, and the defendant was a defendant's execution of the business after receiving F's settlement, and the defendant is recognized as having received a monthly wage from the above company. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view D's employer as F, and otherwise, the defendant is a user of D or the defendant's business owner.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2018.05.03 2017나4748

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2019.12.20 2019고단1470

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.10.30 2017가단108334

-의정부지방법원 2015.12.11 2014가합2270

-수원지방법원 2018.11.06 2018노2587