logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.14 2018고단1439
근로기준법위반등
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of the medical corporation Cmedical Foundation D Hospital in Gyeonggi-do, who ordinarily employs approximately two hundred workers and conducts hospital business, and the Defendant is working at the above workplace from May 23, 201 to January 16, 2017.

A retired worker(s) did not pay the total of KRW 46,773,974 as stated in the attached list of crimes, including the fact that he/she did not pay KRW 3 million in June 201 of E, within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date. The aforementioned E’s retirement pay of KRW 95,669,661 was not paid within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is a ground for dispute over the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., the employer should be deemed to have a reasonable ground for failing to pay wages, etc., and it is difficult to find that the employer had an intent to commit a crime of violating Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. should be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time of dispute over the grounds for refusal of payment, the grounds for the obligation to pay wages, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of business, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. Then, the determination should be made in light of the circumstances at the time of dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. Then, on the ground that the employer has the civil liability to pay wages, etc. ex post facto, the determination should not be concluded that the employer

Facts of recognition

1) The Defendant, as the president of the CMedical Foundation, is a medical corporation, and the said medical foundation is D Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

E is in operation, and E was in office as the father and vice-director at the above hospital from May 23, 201 to January 16, 2017. 2) E is in office in the hospital of this case.

arrow