logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2014.08.07 2014고단875
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative of Pyeongtaek-si B, who is engaged in the manufacturing industry with 20 full-time workers employed, and the employer is employed from May 13, 2013 to December 26, 2013 even though the Defendant paid wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days from the time when the cause for the payment thereof occurred when the worker dies or retires.

A retirement allowance shall not be paid in 32,543,752 won in total to 17 retired workers within 14 days from the date of retirement, as shown in the attached list of crimes, such as KRW 1,240,80,807, in December 2013, and where a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the date of occurrence of the relevant cause for the payment. However, the Defendant is working from July 12, 2012 to March 28, 2014 at the relevant workplace, even if the employee retires, the Defendant is working in the same workplace.

The retirement allowances of retired E, including the retirement allowances of 2,270,290 won, did not pay 15,670,956 won in total to five retired workers within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on extension of the due date.

2. Of the above facts charged, the unpaid part of the charges is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act and cannot be punished against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records, each employee listed in the attached list of crimes can be recognized as having withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Accordingly, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the

arrow