Complete Acquittal in Criminal Charges for Unpaid Severance of a Contracted Independent Contractor
26-06-26 39
본문
1. Case Overview
The client is the CEO of Company B, which operates a concession business. The complainant worked at the client's workplace for approximately 2 years and 4 months before resigning. During employment, the complainant signed a contract as an independent contractor (business income earner). However, upon resignation, the complainant claimed to be a de facto "employee" and reported the client for failing to pay several million won in unpaid wages (including holiday pay) and severance pay within 14 days of resignation. Consequently, the client was indicted and stood trial on charges of violating the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits.
Law Firm Theo legally disputed and actively argued that the client had absolutely no "intent" to withhold wages and severance pay
- Claim of Lack of Intent Regarding Payment Obligation: We proved that the client, following the advice of a tax accountant, had changed the complainant's status from an employee to a business income earner and reported it accordingly, legitimately believing there was no obligation to provide holiday or severance pay.
- Emphasizing the Absence of the Complainant's Objections: We pointed out the fact that although the client continuously sent business income payment statements to the complainant, the complainant raised no objections for a considerable period and only claimed employee status and raised the issue after resigning.
- Limitations in the Employer's Awareness: We clearly demonstrated that even if there was room for the complainant to be recognized as an employee retroactively due to regular working hours and location, from the client's perspective, there were various circumstances making it difficult to easily recognize the complainant as an employee in advance.
3. Result of Assistance
The court with jurisdiction accepted all of Law Firm Theo's arguments and pronounced the client "Not Guilty." The judiciary judged that there was a possibility that not only the defendant but also the complainant themselves did not clearly recognize their status as an employee under the Labor Standards Act until around the time of resignation. As a result, the court ruled that since the client had substantial grounds to dispute the existence of the obligation to pay wages, it could not be concluded that there was an intent to delay wage payments.
___________________________
