logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2020.04.23 2020고정23
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a representative director of C (main) in the third floor of the Gu building B during Gyeyang-si in Gyeonggi-do, who runs a landscape planting construction business using five regular workers.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and 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 works in the above workplace.

4,118,709 won in total, such as wages of 3,360,000 won in September 8, 2018, and wages of 758,709 won in October 2018, which were retired on October 8, 2018, were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Confirmation of telephone, etc. (D, A);

1. Application of business registration certificate and benefit ledger Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the former Labor Standards Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16270, Jan. 15, 2019); the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [Article 334(1) of the same Act is that wages for workers shall be paid in full to workers. Thus, an employer may not set off against workers’ wage claims with claims arising out of tort against workers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2168, Jul. 13, 199). Therefore, the circumstance that the Defendant has damages claim, etc. as alleged against D cannot be a ground for justifying the Defendant’s violation of the Labor Standards Act pursuant to the Defendant’s claim against D.

arrow