logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.22 2017노6079
근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even though the defendant had the intent to commit a crime under Article 44 subparag. 1 and subparag. 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (hereinafter “Retirement Benefits Act”), the court below held that the defendant had the intent to commit a crime under Article 44 subparag. 1 and subparag. 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, since there are reasonable grounds for dispute as to whether the defendant has a duty to pay retirement benefits against D and thus, the defendant has

On the ground that it is difficult to view the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

2. If there are grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay the retirement allowance, there is reasonable ground for the employer’s failure to pay the retirement allowance.

Therefore, there was an intentional act of violating Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Act on Retirement Benefits.

It is difficult to recognize (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 201). However, in a case where a dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay a retirement allowance is based on the premise that the employer has paid a retirement allowance by violating the compulsory rules stipulated in the Act on the Payment of Retirement Benefits, etc., the employer is exempted from punishment pursuant to the above Act, even if he/she set the compulsory rules. Therefore, the legislative intent of the Act on the Payment of Retirement Benefits is likely to be undermined. Nevertheless, the act of proving intent to violate the above Act on the premise that the illegal payment of a retirement allowance is valid does not necessarily mean the assertion of intent to violate the above Act on the premise that the payment of a retirement allowance is valid, and thus, there is no ground to dispute,

It is difficult to see it.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, even if the defendant's assertion that he paid the full amount of retirement pay to D, the defendant paid retirement pay to D through an interim settlement and division agreement.

Therefore, the existence of the obligation to pay retirement allowances.

arrow