The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. G and I operated a restaurant within the D bathing beach in Yangyang-gun C (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) as a Dong business.

The defendant introduced E and F to G upon request from G to ask for questioning persons who will work in the restaurant of this case.

(b)F had a direct consultation on wages with G;

The defendant was acting as a broker for consultation on the working conditions between E and G, and the defendant did not decide on the working conditions of E.

(c)

The defendant is not a business owner of the restaurant in this case but merely a person who introduces workers upon the request of G upon the request of G, and thus does not constitute a person in charge of business management or a person who acts on behalf of a business owner on matters concerning workers.

2. Determination

A. Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act provide that an employer is an employer, and Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an “employer” refers to an employer, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of an employer for matters relating to workers.

Here, “business owner” refers to a business owner, and “a person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers” refers to a person who is granted certain authority and responsibility from a business owner with respect to the determination of labor conditions, such as personnel management, wages, welfare, and labor management, or matters such as order, direction, supervision, etc. of business (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do15915 Decided June 11, 2015). (b) Examining the circumstances as explained by the lower court and the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant constitutes “a person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers of the instant restaurant,” and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1) E and F are the original judgment.