beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the E representative director of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment store No. 404, runs wholesale and retail business using 80 full-time workers.
The Defendant is employed in F and G from March 1, 2008 to June 4, 2012, respectively, in which the said workplace is operated by the Defendant.
The retirement allowance of the retired worker H, I was not paid 14,847,560 won in total to two workers, including 7,423,780 won, respectively, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without any agreement between the parties to the payment.
2. The defendant's assertion that H/I received dividends, not as wages, as a shareholder and partner of H/I, as a shareholder and partner of H/I, the defendant asserts that H/I does not have an obligation to pay retirement benefits.
3. Determination
A. Determination as to whether a worker is subject to the Labor Standards Act should be made according to whether, regardless of the form of contract, labor has been provided to an employer for the purpose of wages in substance.
On the other hand, if there is a ground for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that there is a considerable reason for the employer to not pay such wages, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the employer had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of the reason for the employer's refusal of payment, the ground for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, all other matters such as the purpose of the business, and all other circumstances at the time of dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. Then, on the ground that the employer's civil liability