When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the representative director D in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who is the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and operates the sales business through the Internet shopping mall or off-market by making four regular workers.

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the defendant is working from February 24, 2008 to March 24, 2013 at the above workplace.

The retirement allowance balance of 1,809,063 won was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date on which the cause for payment occurred, without an agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. Where the order for remedy becomes final and conclusive because an administrative action was not filed against the ruling on review of the order for remedy, the employer shall comply therewith, which states that “the dismissal constitutes unfair labor practices and the amount equivalent to the wages which would have been paid if the dismissal had been made normally during the period of dismissal” is not filed by the National Labor Relations Commission

Nevertheless, the Defendant dismissed E, who was employed on February 24, 2008 at the above workplace, on March 24, 2013, because it constitutes an unfair labor practice with disadvantage, and thus, applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission regarding the first instance judgment of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission to immediately restore E to original position and pay the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been paid if he had worked normally during the dismissal period. While the Defendant issued an order of reinstatement to E, it was rejected by the National Labor Relations Commission on September 24, 2013, because the labor relationship between the Defendant and E was duly terminated on September 12, 2013, and the Labor Relations Commission could have received the order of the first trial tribunal (Defendant) by deeming that the labor relationship between the Defendant and E was duly terminated on September 24, 2013.