logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2019.09.20 2019고단739
근로기준법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The facts charged in this case are as follows.

The defendant of "2019 Highest 739" is the actual manager of C Co., Ltd. in Bupyeong-si B, who employs eight full-time workers and operates the automobile repair business.

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

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

Nevertheless, the defendant is working from December 26, 2017 to March 25, 2018 at the above workplace.

D's total amount of 10,000,000 won from January 2, 2018 to March 2018 was not paid within 14 days from the date when the cause for payment occurred without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

B. The Defendant is the actual manager of C Co., Ltd. in Bupyeong-si B, Busan, who runs the automobile repair business using eight 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 in special circumstances, the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties.

The Defendant, at the foregoing workplace, worked from March 5, 2018 to July 31, 2018 and retired from office, did not pay 19,254,838 won in total for three retired workers within 14 days from the date when the cause for the payment occurred without an agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties concerned, as stated in the attached list of crimes, as well as 2,100,000 won on July 7, 2018.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act.

However, the records of this case.

arrow