logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.27 2016노235
근로기준법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserted a mistake of facts is not the actual manager of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), and the instant company was not an employer as provided under the Labor Standards Act at the time of entering into a labor contract with workers D and E (hereinafter “instant workers”).

Therefore, the Defendant is not the subject of the violation of each Labor Standards Act.

B. Even if the facts charged of this case were found guilty, in light of the fact that there is a certain limit to comply with the duty to prepare a labor contract in a small-scale workplace, and that there was a compromise between the instant company and the instant workers in the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the lower court’s punishment (fine 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The subject of the violation of each of the Labor Standards Act in this case’s determination of mistake is an employer, and the Labor Standards Act provides that “the employer is an employer, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters concerning workers.”

The term "person responsible for the management of a business" refers to a person responsible for the general management of the business, who represents or acts as an agent for the business externally after being entrusted by the business owner with the whole or part of the business, and the term "other person who acts as an agent for the business owner with respect to the matters relating to workers" refers to a person who has certain authority and responsibility from the business owner with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as workers' personnel, wages, welfare, labor management, etc., or orders, direction, or supervision

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364, May 11, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and part of the witness F’s legal statement.

arrow