logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.16 2019노2850
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, D workers provided labor to the defendant for more than one year after being employed by the defendant for more than 15 hours a week, and there is no employee employed by any person other than the defendant, and the comprehensive wage agreement between the defendant and D cannot be said to have been concluded, and it is not so.

In light of the fact that the comprehensive wage agreement is invalid, the defendant is obligated to pay weekly leave allowances and retirement allowances to D.

Nevertheless, the court below did not have the obligation of the defendant to pay the weekly leave allowance and retirement allowance to D, and it did not do so.

Even if the Defendant did not have any intention to not pay the weekly leave allowance and retirement allowance, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to weekly leave allowance and retirement allowance, and intention to liquidate each of the above money and valuables, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below (Suspension of sentence: fine of 300,000 won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant and D entered into a daily employment contract with a daily amount of KRW 80,000 per day as the introduction of the job placement office, D unilaterally worked in the restaurant room in the instant restaurant room operated by the Defendant and continued to work on April 7, 2017, and thereafter, from April 20, 2017, the aforementioned period of service was changed to one week or the entire week. According to the method and amount of the Defendant’s payment of daily wages to D, D’s payment of daily wages to D is a worker for day duty repeatedly with the Defendant, and thus, it is unnecessary to consider paid holiday allowances for day duty paid in the weekly wage system or monthly wage system.

arrow