logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.11.26 2014노1834
근로기준법위반등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant did not employ the E and E wifeF as a worker, and there is no fact that they instructed or supervised their business, and thus, the Defendant is not obligated to pay wages to E and F.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Whether a person is a worker under the relevant legal doctrine ought to be determined by whether the person actually provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages regardless of the form of a contract. On the contrary, determination of who is liable to pay wages and retirement allowances for a certain worker should be based on the actual labor relationship regardless of the form of a contract or the content of the relevant law.

[See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da7973 Decided October 23, 2008; 2010Da107071, 107088, May 24, 2012, etc.] (b).

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances, namely, ① the defendant, as the representative of D Inspection, an incorporated association in S Inspection in Syang-si, operated the inspection; ② the defendant paid KRW 1,00,000 per month in return for assisting the work of the inspection; and ② the defendant's wife F in E also paid KRW 1,00,000 per month in return for cleaning and cooking, etc., he/she was employed in the inspection; and he/she was employed in the nearby road site of the inspection in question by preparing a temporary place as a panel and driving in the inspection, and was stated that he/she was engaged in the management of the inspection, such as creating a flag site and legal party (the trial record 42-43 pages). ③ The defendant was also paid KRW 1,00,000 per month from the defendant; and the defendant was engaged in various duties of the inspection, including the above husband and the above husband.

arrow