Whether the representative director of the reorganization company is an employer or business owner under the Labor Standards Act or the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

After the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, all the authorities on the management, disposal, and disposal of the company's management and property are exclusively belonging to the administrator, so the former business owner has been actually involved in the company operation with the position of the representative director, but there is no obligation to conduct a health examination for workers who liquidate or hold money and valuables for retired workers after the commencement of

Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 109 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 32 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Article 45 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court Southern Branch Court (83 High Court Decision 5923)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant was working in the above company between February 3, 1981 and June 17, 1983 as the representative director of non-indicted 1 corporation who employs 117 workers, and he was working in the above company from February 3, 1981 to June 17, 1983. The court below did not pay wages of non-indicted 3 retired workers on August 15, 1983 within 14 days from the date when the grounds for appeal occurred without agreement between the parties concerned. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above company's corporate reorganization decision or since it did not make an excessive decision for the above company's corporate reorganization decision because it did not conduct a periodic health examination for the non-indicted 4 and 16 workers who were in office in the above company, but it did not have an economic authority to select and manage the above company as the representative director of the Seoul District Court or its remaining representative director after the above company reorganization decision.

However, according to the evidence of the court below's decision, the fact that the defendant was working as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation until December 29, 1978 and worked for the above company, including the non-indicted 2's retirement allowance of 1,38,33, who retired on February 18, 1982, and the total amount of 36,642,366, such as the retirement allowance of 95 workers and wages as stated in the attached list of the attached list, did not receive within 14 days from the date of retirement as of the date of occurrence of each cause for payment without agreement between the parties, and the fact that the non-indicted 4 and 116, who were in office, did not receive a regular medical examination in 1982 can be sufficiently recognized.

However, according to the transcript of the company register and the copy of the decision made by non-indicted 1, 6 and non-indicted 7 as to non-indicted 6's non-indicted 1 corporation, which were bound in the records, the fact that the administrator is appointed in the order of non-indicted 8 and 9 since the non-indicted 5 was issued an order to commence the company reorganization procedure from the Southern Branch of the Seoul District Court as of April 17, 1980 and was appointed as the same day. Meanwhile, according to Article 53 of the former Company Reorganization Act before the amendment by Act No. 3380 of March 5, 1981, the court below held that the right to manage and dispose of the company's business should be exclusive to the administrator. Further, since Article 53 of the amended Company Reorganization Act provides that the director or its quasi-representative shall not unfairly interfere with the above company's exercise of the right of the representative director's right to manage and dispose of the company's money and valuables or there is no change in the above company's status as the employee's property management relation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the remaining grounds for appeal and the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor, and the appeal by the defendant is justified.

The summary of the facts charged in this case

The defendant is the representative director of non-indicted 1 corporation located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (detailed number omitted) who employs 117 full-time workers;

1. On February 18, 1982, employee non-indicted 2's retirement allowance of 1,388,333 of employee non-indicted 2, who was employed by the above non-indicted 1 corporation, was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without the agreement between the parties concerned, and did not pay 36,775,218 won in total for employee's retirement allowance and wages within 14 days from the date of retirement without the agreement between the parties concerned;

2. In the year 1982, the health examination for workers and non-indicted 4 and non-indicted 116 was not conducted on a regular basis, and the health examination for workers was not conducted on a regular basis. As stated in the above reasons for reversal, the above facts charged constitute a case where all facts charged are not a crime or there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the judgment

Judges Ansan-tae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)