logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.06.11 2014도15915
근로기준법위반
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act are employers. Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the term “employer” refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business management, and other persons who act on behalf of a business owner for matters relating to workers.

The term "business owner" refers to the business owner who operates a business, and the term "person who acts on behalf of the business owner with respect to matters concerning workers" refers to a person who is granted certain authority and responsibility from the business owner with respect to matters concerning the determination of working conditions, such as personnel affairs, wages, welfare, labor management, etc., or orders,

(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu6924 Decided November 14, 1989; 2008Do5984 Decided October 9, 2008, etc.)

2. The court below cited the judgment of the court of first instance. ① The representative E of the retired workers of this case was awarded a subcontract for a molding construction in the construction work of this case and demanded the number of necessary trees at the site, and made work at the construction site of this case with the above retired workers; ② the defendant stated that he was the above retired workers' wage decision, wage payment, and specific work order; ② the defendant received all wages from the retirement workers of this case from the company I and paid them individually to the above retired workers; ③ the defendant asserted that he was paid wages in advance upon delayed payment of wages to the retired workers; ③ the defendant was merely a simple wage worker; and the defendant was merely a simple wage worker; ④ the defendant did not need to pay wages to other workers in advance under circumstances where it is difficult for the employer; ④ the defendant prepared the construction agreement on April 16, 201 and the construction work agreement on “D New Food Construction Work”, and the above construction work is concluded directly immediately after the conclusion of the contract.

arrow