2017Do433 Violation of the Labor Standards Act, and violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act

A

Prosecutor

Law Firm F, Attorneys G, 0

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No3723 Decided March 10, 2017

July 11, 2017

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where there are grounds for dispute as to whether or not the obligation to pay the wages and retirement allowances exists and the scope thereof;

If the employer does not pay the wages, retirement allowances, etc., there are reasonable grounds for the employer to do so.

Since the employer should be seen as an employer, the employer is in violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and the employee retirement.

It is difficult to deem that there was an intention to commit a crime of violation of Article 9 and Article 44 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Guarantee of Direct Payment.

Whether there is any ground to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances, etc.

reasons for refusal of payment and grounds for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer;

Disputes over the existence and scope of payment obligation, such as wages and retirement allowances, various matters including purposes, etc.

Determination ought to be made in light of the overall circumstances at the time (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1539 Decided June 28, 2007)

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248 Decided October 13, 201, etc.

On the other hand, wages for workers must be paid in full directly to workers.

the employer has with respect to the employee, except for claims for the return of wages paid; or

No set-off may be made against an employee’s wage claim with a claim arising from a tort (Supreme Court)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da26721 delivered on December 21, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 99Do2168 delivered on July 13, 1999

See Supreme Court Decision, etc.)

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows; “Defendant” is as C shares in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Section 802.

(hereinafter referred to as "C") in the course of operating a company (hereinafter referred to as "C") and engaging in the import and sale of livestock products;

As the team leader of the livestock distribution business division from October 6, 2014 to October 22, 2015 at the same place of business.

14,643,240 won in total, such as wages, bonuses, retirement allowances, etc. of retired workers D while serving us

The payment was not made within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.

C. "C."

3. The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, overall management business concerning purchase and sale of imported meat.

D in charge of free dealing with the price lower than the price of the imported land continuously purchased during the period of service;

The normal labor service in C was not reported to the upper part while dealing with the act of breach of trust.

Inasmuch as it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was liable to pay wages, etc.

In light of these circumstances, from August 2015, the Defendant identified the Defendant’s breach of trust as D’s breach of trust.

Labor Standards Act for which wages, bonuses, retirement allowances, etc. have not been paid until dismissal;

It is difficult to recognize that there was an intentional act of violating the anti-crimes and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act; and

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the defendant is dismissed on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove the facts charged.

The court rendered a judgment of innocence.

4. However, examining the foregoing legal principles in light of the foregoing, the team leader of the livestock distribution business division employed by D as C.

work shall be provided as a result of the management of the purchase and sale of imported land while in office;

As long as there has been a breach of trust in the process, there is a claim, such as wages, against C.

It cannot be viewed that the defendant did not have any obligation to pay wages, etc., and there is a dispute about the existence and scope of such obligation

Considering that there are reasonable grounds for not paying the same, it constitutes a case where there are reasonable grounds.

Therefore, it is difficult for the Defendant to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and to retire workers.

No intent shall be intentional to commit a violation of Article 9 or 44 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Guarantee of Benefits and Guarantee of Secrecy.

5. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Deliberation shall be conducted in violation of the Labor Standards Act due to unpaid wages, etc. and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of insurrection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

6. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded.

The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim Chang-tae, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Cho Jong-hee