logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.13 2017노4193
근로기준법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the fact that the Defendant did not specify in writing at the time of entering into a labor contract, the Defendant was unaware of the duty to deliver a document specifying the working conditions to himself/herself as a zero-business operator, and the method of preparing a labor contract in writing was also different, so the Defendant is not liable for this.

2) It was true that the Defendant did not pay 19.10,00 won to workers E with respect to the payment of wages. However, the Defendant attempted to pay the above wage by February 21, 2017, but the Defendant refused to accept the payment without confirming the address to be stated in the certificate of receipt of wages for tax return, but the Defendant refused to receive the payment with the pre-employment payment without confirming the address to be entered in the certificate of receipt

Therefore, since the defendant's failure to pay the above wages is due to non- cooperation or refusal of the above E, the defendant is not liable for it.

3) The Defendant is not obligated to pay the pre-employment allowance, since the Defendant did not dismiss E, but the Defendant did not work voluntarily, for the unpaid payment of the pre-employment allowance.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the fact that the Defendant did not specify in writing at the time of concluding a labor contract, it was not aware that it was unlawful for the Defendant to not prepare a labor contract at the time of entering into a labor contract constitutes a mere legal site and does not affect the establishment of a crime. This part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted as to the remainder of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant merely because it does not affect

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the payment of wages, are already under E.

arrow