logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.22 2017노333
근로기준법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As a factual misunderstanding F embezzled money much more than the wage amount while working in E, there is no wage that the Defendant is obligated to pay to F, and the unpaid wage amount cannot be specified.

With respect to the grounds for ex officio investigation, the court of appeals shall judge without any need to examine whether the grounds for appeal are submitted if the appeal is lawful, or whether the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, with respect to those other than the grounds for ex officio investigation, it shall be limited to cases where it is stated in the petition of appeal or is included in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, and even if it is not included in the statement of reasons which affect the judgment, it may be tried ex officio, even if it is not included in the statement of reasons, and on the other hand, even if the defendant or defense counsel states

Nor may be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do167, Feb. 26, 2002). The defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's written opinion on April 11, 2017; the summary of his/her oral argument on April 12, 2017; the summary of his/her oral argument on June 15, 2017; and the summary of his/her oral argument on August 16, 2017; and the summary of his/her oral argument on August 16, 2017, "the defendant did not pay wages to FE, while entirely managing the sales of FE, brought some of them into wages; and used money exceeding the actual amount of wages for personal use.

It cannot be seen, and the defendant argued to the effect that he did not have the intention to pay wages, and that the F impliedly consented to the payment of wages of the defendant. However, the appellate brief does not state the above contents, but does not state such contents within the due time limit for submitting the appellate brief. Thus, the above argument cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal.

arrow