logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.06.09 2014노2035
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant served as the chief of the field management department of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and was reported by other employees on the execution of funds, the defendant, as the representative director under the name of D, should be deemed as the business operator under Article 2(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act, who is an employee, and is obligated to pay wages and retirement allowances, but is not guilty of the judgment of the court below.

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a person in charge of business operation of a company with 20 full-time employees, working as the representative director of D in Yong-gun, Yong-Nam, Yong-gun, Ma, who is in force from April 1, 2012.

The Defendant had worked in D from June 1, 2012 to August 31, 2012, and failed to pay KRW 5,000,000 to retired workers E, within 14 days from the date of retirement, as stated in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, and did not pay workers’ wages and retirement allowances within 14 days from the date of retirement, as stated in each of the items of paragraphs (1) through (4) of the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment.

Judgment

A. Article 2(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “employer” refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers, and “person in charge of business management” refers to a person who is responsible for general business management and represents or acts on behalf of an external business upon delegation of all or part of business management by a business owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1199 Decided April 10, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364 Decided May 11, 2006, etc.) B.

The lower court determined that the Defendant was appointed as the representative director of D on April 6, 2012 and completed the registration on April 10, 2012. However, according to the evidence submitted, I and J were from G.

arrow