logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.03.03 2015고단35
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

Defendant A is a user who runs a service business using two full-time workers as the C representative located in Daegu Dong-gu B second floor.

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days, unless there exists any agreement between the parties on the extension of the fixed date from the time when the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from May 14, 2012 to February 28, 2014 at the above workplace.

1,60,000 won in October 2013, wage of 1,650,000 won in 2013, wage of 1,650,000 in November 2013, wage of 1,650,000 in December 2013, wage of 1,650,000 in January 2014, and wage of 1,650,000 in February 2014, and wage of 8,200,000,000 won in February 2014, and from January 3, 2012 to January 28, 2014.

Workers E, who retired on August 2013, paid 461,220 won in August 2013, wage of 1,440,00 won in September 2013, wage of 1,440,000 won in October 2013, wage of 1,440,000 won in November 2013, wage of 1,440,000 won in December 2013, wage of 1,440,000 won in December 2013, and wage of 1,300,650 won in January 2014, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within 14 days, unless agreed between the parties concerned regarding the extension of the fixed date, from the time when the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the defendant works from May 14, 2012 to February 28, 2014 at the above workplace.

Workers D' retirement pay of 2,441,090 won and from December 3, 2012 to January 28, 2014.

1,572,710 won of retirement allowance E of the employee retired on the following day was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Judgment

In this case, the facts charged in this case cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under Article 109 (2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

arrow