logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.06.10 2015고단1025
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is an employer who runs the Internet shopping mall business using five full-time workers as the representative director of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (ju) and 3th.

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.

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

Nevertheless, the suspect has worked from May 21, 2012 to November 30, 2013 at the above workplace.

The details of the attached Form No. 23,026,590 of the retired D's wages, including KRW 1,808,160 in July 2013, did not pay 23,026,590, respectively, for the lapse of 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

(b) When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from May 21, 2012 to November 30, 2013 at the above workplace.

The retirement allowance of 3,332,280 won was not paid until 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Determination

(a) Violation of the Labor Standards Act (Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act): Crimes of non-compliance under Article 109(2) of the same Act;

(b) Violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act): The crime of failing to impose any punishment against one's own will under the proviso to

C. The victims withdrawn their intent to punish the Defendant on January 7, 2015, after the prosecution of the instant case was instituted.

(d) Public prosecution dismissal: Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

arrow