Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the Ccafeteria located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and is an employer who runs a restaurant (here-type) with ten regular workers.

From July 1, 2011 to March 20, 2013, the Defendant worked at the same place of business as of April 4, 2013, and did not pay the retirement allowances of DD 4,135,880 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to average wages and retirement allowance calculation statement;

1. Article 44 of the relevant Act on criminal facts and Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act and the Selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that since the defendant concludes a comprehensive wage contract with D and pays monthly salary including retirement allowances, there is no retirement allowance to be paid.

However, if an employer and an employee agreed to pay in advance a certain amount of money as retirement allowance along with a monthly or daily allowance paid by the employer and the employee, the agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, which is a mandatory law, because the employee waives his/her right to claim a retirement allowance arising from the final retirement in advance, unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement of the retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits

Even if there is no validity of the payment of retirement allowances (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011). Moreover, the employer’s retirement allowances against retired workers on the ground of an agreement with the employer that “paid retirement allowances by including them in the monthly salary or daily daily allowance,” which is not effective under the private law.