logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.24 2019고정962
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the C representative director of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who runs educational support service by using five full-time workers.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, retirement allowances, and all other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date of payment may be extended by the agreement between the parties if special circumstances exist.

Nevertheless, the defendant is working from February 17, 2016 to February 9, 2018 at the above workplace.

As of February 2018, retired D's wages of 707,142 won, retirement allowances of 4,29,462 won, advance notice allowances of dismissal of 2,200,00 won, and from June 2, 2016 to February 9, 2018.

The retirement E’s wages of KRW 3,00,000 in January 2018, and the wages of KRW 867,857 in February 2018, retirement allowances of KRW 4,504,070 in advance notice allowances of dismissal, and KRW 18,278,531 in total, were not paid within 14 days from each retirement date without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties concerned.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, subparagraphs 1 and 9 of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. No public prosecution may be instituted against each victim’s express intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

According to the records, workers E on August 14, 2019, which was after the prosecution of this case, and workers D on October 10, 2019 expressed to this court the intention not to punish each defendant. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow