logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2014.11.27 2014고단914
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of C of Asan City Co., Ltd. in B, who ordinarily employs three workers and operates a manufacturing business of electrical appliances for kitchen use. A.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the defendant works in the workplace from June 7, 2012 to March 31, 2014.

With respect to retired workers D, 7,713,730 won including wage 2,09,750 won on September 2013, 2013, including wage 2,09,750 won for retired workers, were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of payment due date between the parties concerned.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

Nevertheless, the defendant works in the workplace from June 7, 2012 to March 31, 2014.

A total of 14,165,730 won of retirement allowances, including 4,721,910 won of retirement allowances for retired workers D, as shown in the list of offenses against three retired workers, was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on extension of payment date between the parties concerned.

2. The determination is based on the following facts: (a) an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act; and (b) Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act; and (c) an offense may not be prosecuted against each victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act; and (d) proviso to Article 4

According to the records, the defendant submitted a wage delay agreement to the effect that he/she agreed with the victims on November 19, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted, accompanied by a personal seal impression of the victims.

arrow