The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant is not the user of the LAD, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of Workers is an employer. Article 2 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits provides that “employer” refers to an employer under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “employer” refers to an employer, a person in charge of business management, or any other person who acts on behalf of an employer for matters relating to a worker.

Here, the term “business owner” refers to a person who is responsible for the general management of the business and represents or represents the business externally upon delegation by the business owner with all or part of the business. The term “person who acts on behalf of the business owner with respect to the matters relating to workers” refers to a person who is given certain authority and responsibility from the business owner with respect to the determination of labor conditions, such as workers’ personnel management, wages, welfare, labor management, or orders, direction, supervision, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Do1162, Nov. 22, 198; 88Nu6924, Nov. 14, 198; 2014Do15915, Jun. 11, 2015; hereinafter “H”) and the Defendant, upon delegation of the management of the HJ from around 200 to 160, etc., was bound by the said agreement.