logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.12 2017고정3874
근로기준법위반
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the representative of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, is an employer who runs a service business (a aquaculture) by ordinarily employing eight workers.

(a) An employer in violation of Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act shall, when entering into a labor contract, specify in writing wages, prescribed working hours, holidays under Article 55, annual paid leaves under Article 60, and other working conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree to the worker, and shall deliver to the worker a written statement specifying the constituent items, calculation method, payment method, prescribed working hours, holidays under Article 55, and annual paid leaves under Article 60;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not prepare and deliver to E a document stating the constituent elements of wages, calculation method, payment method, prescribed working hours, etc. while entering into an employment contract with E that was retired from the said workplace from March 15, 2017 to July 7, 2017.

(b) An employer who violates Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker dies or retires, pay the worker wages, compensations, or any other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 4,290,320 as of June 1, 2017, which was retired from the said workplace, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The written statement of the police about E [the defendant and the defense counsel prepared the written labor contract with E], and argued that E has a labor contract at the time of withdrawal of E, so the defendant will have a labor contract with E only with the materials submitted by the defendant.

arrow