logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2013.12.12 2013고정929
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Facts charged;

A. The Defendant in violation of the Labor Standards Act is the representative of C&A in substantial Gu B Cheongju-si, who ordinarily employs three workers and operates a private teaching institute business.

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 worked as an English instructor from January 2, 2012 to June 30, 2013 at the same place of business, and did not pay KRW 300,000 for April 4, 2013 of D that retired, as wages of KRW 1,00,000 for May 1, 2013, and KRW 80,000 for June 2, 2013, and KRW 2,100,000 for wages of KRW 80,000 for June 30, 2013, and from December 20, 2012 to June 30, 2013, the Defendant did not agree to pay KRW 80,00 for wages of KRW 80,00 for retirement, wages of KRW 1,300,00 for May 1, 200, and wages of KRW 705,705,700 for retirement without agreement between the parties concerned.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked as an English instructor from January 2, 2012 to June 30, 2013 at the above workplace, and did not pay KRW 1,116,272 of D retirement pay to the retirement pay extension of the due date without agreement between the parties.

2. The instant facts charged are cases in which a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the victim’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. According to the written agreement submitted to this court on December 11, 2013, D and E wish to punish the Defendant.

arrow