logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.01.09 2018노1996
근로기준법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the Defendant of mistake of facts and the four others agreed that “the time mined pine trees were sold” on the date of payment of personnel expenses, and the extracted timber has not yet been sold.

Since the defendant recognizes that there is considerable reason to dispute about the timing of payment of wages, there is no intention of violation of the Labor Standards Act.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (the lower court’s sentence: a fine of four million won)

2. Determination

A. 1) In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant alleged to the effect that this part of the grounds for appeal are alleged, but the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds of detailed reasoning in its judgment. 2) If there are grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that the employer has a considerable reason for not paying the said wages. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the employer had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there are grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. should be determined in light of the grounds for refusal of payment, the grounds for the employer’s obligation to pay, the organization and size of the company operated by

3) In full view of the circumstances established by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the purport that the time when the pine tree was sold was not determined as the time of wage payment, and that employees agreed not to receive wages in the event that the pine tree was not sold to the employer is not in compliance with the empirical rule, it cannot be deemed that there is a ground for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay the instant wage, and the Defendant is ultimately the instant case.

arrow