logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.23 2016노1713
근로기준법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant merely paid allowances for work on board as a good-faith allowance by different indications of the item, which was actually paid a holiday allowance. Therefore, there was no intention to violate the Labor Standards Act.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Labor Standards Act or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the finding of guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the argument of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The lower court argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) under the organization agreement of this case, the ordinary wage is determined as basic pay, continuous service allowance, and allowance for work on board, and the allowance for work on board is included in ordinary wages; (b) under the labor-management agreement, the number of absence of work is determined to be deducted; (c) the Defendant’s good faith allowance paid to employees may be deemed as ordinary wages regardless of the organization’s specification; (c) the Defendant’s full payment of wages was not made; and (d) the organization and size of the Defendant’s regular employees engaged in transportation business with 102 persons and did not small; and (c) the Defendant and the defense counsel did not accept the allegation on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was no intention to violate the Labor Standards Act.

2) The lower court’s judgment is in line with the above circumstances, and ① the instant collective agreement clearly separates allowances and work allowances as wages (collective agreements).

arrow