logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.11.22 2016고정1098
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Co., Ltd. C and 403, who runs the business of manufacturing Alknific criwons, using four regular workers.

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 defendant works from January 27, 2014 to January 26, 2015 at the above workplace.

D's wages of 639,720 won on June 6, 2014, wages of 1,634,480 won from July 7, 2014 to December 2014, and wages of 12,095,70 won on January 1, 2015, including wages of 1,649,100 won, were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on extension of the due 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 in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not pay 1,760,860 won of the victim D's retirement allowance within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.

2. The offense of violating the Labor Standards Act stated in the facts charged of this case is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and under Article 109(2) of the same Act, the offense of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits is an offense falling under Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the proviso of

However, according to the records, the victim worker D withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant on November 16, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case.

arrow