beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.08.19 2020고정817

근로기준법위반등

Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the representative director of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Corporation D located in B and C, is an employer who runs real estate business using four full-time workers.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date may be extended by an agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the defendant is working in charge of accounting from November 29, 2013 to April 25, 2019 at the above workplace.

The retirement E’s total amount of KRW 3,100,000 in arrears, including the wage of KRW 550,000 in March 2019 and the wage of KRW 2,550,00 in April 2, 2019, did not pay KRW 3,100,000 within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for such payment, without any agreement

(b) When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

Provided, That the payment date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the defendant is working in charge of accounting from November 29, 2013 to April 25, 2019 at the above workplace.

The retirement allowance of retired E was not paid KRW 13,790,959 within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be punished against the employee’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. Since a written withdrawal of complaint, which states that the defendant does not want punishment after the institution of the instant indictment, is submitted