logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.03.26 2014고정689
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of C Co., Ltd. (1102) of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B, who employs 10 full-time workers and engages in the business of manufacturing DNA display.

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.

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked from July 18, 201 to February 16, 2013 at the above workplace and did not pay the total amount of KRW 9,137,640,00 within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked from July 18, 201 to February 16, 2013 at the above workplace and did not pay KRW 4,231,000 of D retirement pay within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those 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 prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under 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 statement of withdrawal of the petition attached to the claim for formal trial, the victim D can recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant around January 27, 2014, after the indictment of this case was instituted. Thus, all of the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow