beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) The Defendant did not have the employer’s status as to the six workers (hereinafter “the workers of this case”) as indicated in the lower judgment, and was the owner of the construction of this case.
G/O was an employer for the instant workers.
Judgment
When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred (the main sentence of Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act); and the term “employer” means the employer, the person in charge of business management, and other persons who act on behalf of the employer with respect to the matters relating to the worker (Article 2(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged:
G/O (the 42th page of the trial record, 2/31 of the evidence record) (the 45th page of the trial record, 45th page of the trial record, 1st page of the evidence record) (the 41, 49th page of the trial record, 2nd page 31, 1st page 69) which is the main owner of the construction of the new multi-family house of this case, entered into an oral construction contract with the defendant (the 45th page of the trial record, 1st page of the evidence record), and did not participate in the employment, management, and supervision of the instant workers (the 41, 42, 49th page of the trial record). Of the instant workers, F, one of the instant workers, was placed in the court of the lower court, and the defendant was placed in the work site of this case (the 88th page of the trial record), and N, who is the defendant and the defendant, had been directed and supervised by G, to some extent that G was verbally (the 92).
G made a statement that there is no direct wage from G (the 91th page of the trial record). One of the instant workers is also at an investigative agency, as a general manager at the construction site of this case, the Defendant was actually in charge of on-site management and money management, and N, the Defendant’s son, is stationed at the site on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant was present at the site.