logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.06.07 2018노475
업무상배임
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the annual salary system including retirement allowances under the articles of incorporation before the change from December 15, 2009 is null and void.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the defendant received retirement benefits from December 16, 2007, retroactively after the resolution of the Steering Committee.

Therefore, 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 by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant was the head of the victim’s association, taking into account the circumstances leading up to the appointment of the head of the above branch, the authority of the head of the association, the details of specific duties, remuneration and treatment, etc., and it is difficult to view the Defendant as the head of the victim’s association’s head as a worker under the Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Na304988, May 11, 2017, which became final and conclusive between the victim association and the Defendant), and on December 15, 2009, he was only entitled to receive retirement allowances in the form included in the annual salary according to the previous articles of

D. According to the reasoning of the court below, regardless of whether the defendant constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act or whether the payment of a prior retirement allowance to the defendant is null and void, the defendant was already paid a monthly retirement allowance including the retirement allowance from December 26, 2007 to December 14, 2009, and the defendant was also aware of this fact. Thus, when the defendant revised the articles of incorporation and newly accumulated the retirement allowance to the defendant, the court below set aside the retirement allowance except for the part already paid, or the retirement allowance already paid to the victim union.

arrow