logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.14 2015고정470
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the DNA representative director Co., Ltd., Ltd., located in Suwon-si, who employs 32 full-time workers and runs the business of manufacturing electronic parts.

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

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from February 1, 2007 to July 20, 2014 at the above workplace.

The retirement E's wages of 4,299,430 won for June 2014, and the wages of 3,172,410 won for July 2014, did not pay 7,471,840 won for 7,471,840 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of payment dates.

(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 date of payment may be extended by an agreement between the parties in special circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from February 1, 2007 to July 20, 2014 at the above workplace.

The retirement allowance of retired E was not paid 4,215,874 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Of the facts charged in this case, the fact that the violation of the Labor Standards Act was committed pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, is that the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits cannot be prosecuted against the express intent of each victim under the proviso of Article 44

However, according to the records, it can be recognized that the victim E withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant on April 22, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, the victim wishes to punish a case that cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim.

arrow