logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2019.08.29 2018고단747
최저임금법위반등
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates “C” on the first floor of the building B in Busan Northern-gu.

Any employer who violates the Minimum Wage Act shall provide the workers subject to the minimum wage with wages exceeding the minimum wage amount.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from March 21, 2016 to September 29, 2017 in the above “C”.

Withdrawn paid 300,000 won below the minimum wage amount per month from April 2016 to December 2016 of the same year, and 300,000 won below the minimum wage amount per month from January 2017 to September 230 of the same year, and paid 30,000 won below the minimum wage amount.

(b) When a worker dies or retires, the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from March 21, 2016 to September 29, 2017 in the above “C”.

Withdrawn did not pay 18,112,50 won (the sum of KRW 960,270 per month between April and December of the same year from April 2016 to September of the same year (the sum of KRW 8,642,430 per month and KRW 1,052,230 per month during nine months from January 2017 to September of the same year) within 14 days from the date of retirement of D, as described in paragraph 1.

2. The instant facts charged on the premise that D had worked for eight hours a day in C, but in light of the following circumstances recognized by evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that D had worked eight hours a day from March 21, 2016 to September 29, 2017 only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The father of D, who is a person with intellectual disability, provided the defendant with a solution to board and lodging and 300,000 won with money, and it was recognized that D had the same facts in this court.

arrow