logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.03 2017고정3296
근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CD (ju), who employs eight full-time workers and operates a private teaching institute business.

When a worker retires, an employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days from the date on which the grounds for such payment occurred: Provided, That the period of payment may, in special circumstances, be extended by mutual agreement between the parties concerned.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 27,726,322 to E who retired workers while working in the same workplace from January 12, 201 to August 31, 2016, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of each police officer against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. The franchise contract, each lecture, each principal's financial transaction, the assignment of lecture rooms, the list of instructors evaluation, the instructor's meeting data for the new semester, the e-mail flight new contents, and other lecture-related materials [as acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., the E has been paid periodically the wages of KRW 60,000 won per hour from the defendant during the above service period, i.e., the E has been paid periodically from the defendant during the above service period. The number of students for each semester have been additionally paid incentives (60,00 won per 15 students) according to the number of students. In addition, the number of students who are the basis for the calculation of incentives was determined in accordance with the defendant's education institute's student recruitment performance, and E was determined according to the defendant's student recruitment performance, and most of E was not actually involved in the recruitment, ② E's lecture time, place, teaching materials, etc., prepared and distributed most of the above plans by the defendant without his/her consent.

arrow