2020 Violation of the Labor Standards Act

A (55-1)

July 6, 2021

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

Gongn Jin 1)

The defendant is a representative of "B" of "B" a comprehensive architect office in Chuncheon City (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1548, Feb. 2, 2000). The defendant is a representative of "B" (see, e.g., Court Decision 200

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred: Provided, That the period may, under special circumstances, be extended by mutual agreement between the parties concerned.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, the employer, was employed from March 11, 2019 to June 11, 2020 in the place of business of the above limited company B, and was employed from March 11, 2019 to June 11, 2020 by the retired workers C, and did not pay the wages of KRW 2,50,000 in the wages of April 20, 2020, the wages of KRW 3,000,000 in the wages of May 20, 2020, and the wages of KRW 500,000 in the wages of June 20, 200, within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Maz.

1. Relevant legal principles

If there is a "founded ground for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc.", it shall be deemed that there is a "reasonable reason" that the employer has not paid such wages, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the employer has "the intention of violation of Articles 36 and 109 (1) of the Labor Standards Act". Whether there is a ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of the reasons for refusal of payment by the employer, the grounds for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of business, and all other circumstances at the time of dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., and on the ground that the civil liability of the employer is recognized later, it shall not be concluded that the intention of the employer has been recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14693, Oct. 27, 2011).

2. Determination

A. According to the record, the following facts and circumstances may be acknowledged:

① On March 11, 2019, the Defendant representing B of the above limited liability company: (a) concluded a labor contract between C and the above corporation with the effect that (i) the pertinent corporation C performs the “regular supervision” at the site of the construction work of the new neighborhood living facilities located in Chuncheon City where the general architect office B is in charge of supervision; and (ii) was paid KRW 3,400,000 during the period of work by December 11, 2019 (see, e.g., the first right to evidence record).

② On December 16, 2019, it can be said that the above corporation, a general architect B, was represented by the above limited company B as a "commercial supervision" (see, e.g., evidence No. 1st and No. 34 of the record) and that it was immediately after the completion of the above work period, which can be said to be immediately after the completion of the above work period.

③ Although the aforementioned C submitted a construction supervision log (see, e.g., Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Evidence Records) that continuously continued to work as a “on-site supervision” even after the lapse of February 3, 2020, which was the termination date of the work period stipulated by the labor contract of March 11, 2019, which was December 11, 2019, and that the said C continued to work as a “on-site supervision” (see, e.g., Disposition No. 8 of the Evidence Records), it is difficult to view that the content of the said construction supervision log is in a uniform and mechanical manner, and thus, C provided labor prescribed by the labor contract of March 11, 2019.

④ On the ground that the above C received unemployment benefits (see, e.g., the record of the examination of the C’s witness), the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation corrected the reason for the loss of the insured status for employment insurance to “a resignation due to delayed payment of wages” from “the reason for loss of the insured status for employment insurance” (see, e.g., the request for submission of data attached to the trial record on April 23, 2021).

B. In full view of the above points, the defendant's assertion that there is no obligation to pay wages for April 2020 to June 2020, as stated in the facts charged after termination, since the labor contract was agreed on March 11, 2019 on January 7, 2020, can be deemed that there is a ground for dispute from the defendant's standpoint.

In light of this, the defendant and his defense counsel, i.e., the defendant and his defense counsel, which can be viewed as including that there was no doubt about the delayed payment. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone lacks to recognize the facts charged of this case premised on the intention of the delay, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this decision is announced in accordance with the main sentence of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges fixed-type

1) As the Defendant denies, the same part of relevant evidence as that of the relevant evidence should be stated in the same way as “(see, e.g., evidence records).” According to the records, the prosecutor’s charges are modified to the extent that it does not adversely affect the Defendant’s right of defense and actually affect the contents of the facts charged, thereby affecting the change of the object of trial in the court.

2) 편의상 특별사법경찰관이 흑(黑)번호를 붙여 송치한 증거기록을 '제1권', 적(赤)번호를 붙여 다시 송치한 증거기록을 '제2권'이라고 한다.