logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.08.12 2016고정1615
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of C, a corporation located in Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, and an employer who runs a manufacturing business (including refining and refining in gold) using five full-time workers.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay D wages of KRW 10,50,00 ( KRW 1,500,5000 on June 1, 2015, KRW 1,500,500 on August 1, 2015, KRW 1,500,000 on September 1, 500,000 on September 1, 200, KRW 1,500,500 on October 1, 200, KRW 500 on November 1,50,500 on December 5, 500,000 on December 1, 200, and KRW 50,000 on the date of multilateral payment, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the date of multilateral payment.

(b) An employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the grounds for payment occur, if the employee retires;

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

Nevertheless, the defendant did not pay KRW 1,479,451 of the retirement allowance of the above D within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the payment date between the parties.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 subparag. 1 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

However, according to the records of this case, on June 8, 2016, when the injured worker D submitted a written application to the effect that he/she does not want to be punished against the defendant to this court, which was after the prosecution was instituted (the defendant submitted a written agreement by additional agreement between D and D during the trial process, but later.

arrow