beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, paid the subcontractor B the subcontract price which includes the wages of workers, and the Defendant did not have any reason to pay the unpaid wages to his employees, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (the suspended sentence: a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Articles 44-2 and 109 of the Labor Standards Act provide that where a construction business provides two or more contracts for work in a construction business, a subcontractor, who is not a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, is unable to pay wages to his/her employees, a demand and supply worker in the direct position of such sewage shall be jointly and severally liable with a sewage supplier for the payment of wages to the employees employed by the sewage supplier, and shall punish a direct contractor who violates this provision.
This means that a direct contractor commits an illegal act committed against a person whose financial capacity, etc. for a construction work is not verified because he/she is not registered as a construction business, thereby causing abstract risk as to the nonperformance of the obligation to pay wages of a sewage levelr, and thus, it can be said that the contractor is responsible when the risk is realized because the sewage levelr actually failed to perform the obligation to pay wages. As such, a direct contractor is liable for the failure to pay wages of a sewage levelr even if he/she does not have any direct cause to pay wages (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2013Hun-Ga, Apr. 24, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8417, Nov. 12, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing, the instant case’s health class and the Defendant, a direct supplier, as alleged by the Defendant, is the sewage level B workers.