(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.27 2015노2521 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.27 2015노2521

근로기준법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles ① Company C operated by the Defendant merely accepted only E’s mechanical devices around May 2013, and did not succeed to labor relations, and the Defendant and E do not have any relationship.

2. I merely receives service costs from E, not workers employed.

③ The F and I’s benefits cannot be deemed to be KRW 2 million per month.

(4) No defendant shall have intention to violate the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles are based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) G has established E by lending the name of P around October 2012; (ii) G appears to have entirely dependent on the Defendant’s establishment and operation funds of the above company; (iii) the Defendant stated to the labor supervisor of the Korea Labor Agency that “the workplace having relations prior to the establishment was aware of low (G) as the former; and (iv) the workplace having relations with the former establishment was the president in itself; (iii) the Defendant provided management funds by periodically finding the workplace; (iv) instructed employees and employees to find the business; and (v) around July 5, 2013, C had been established by the Defendant to take over the entire factory machinery and equipment at the same place before the end of the factory; and (v) had been working for the same manufacturing business at the pre-existing workplace; and (v) had been working at the same place as the pre-existing employees of the E company.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2015.06.11 2014고정258

-대구지방법원 2021.02.03 2020노2039

-수원지방법원 2017.09.06 2017노1277

-서울행정법원 2015.12.10 2014구합74060

-인천지방법원 2018.07.19 2017노3758