logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.02.22 2017고단1677
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative of C Co., Ltd. in the Gumi-si B, operates a manufacturing business with 31 full-time workers.

(a) When an employee in violation of the Labor Standards Act dies or retires, the employer shall pay him/her wages, compensations, or other money or 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 did not pay the wages of 1,652,380 won in October 2016, 2016, the monthly wage of 1,652,380 won, the monthly wage of 1,652,380 won, the monthly wage of 1,652,380 won, the monthly wage of 1,652,380 won, the wage of 2,711,605 won in January 2017, the wage of 2,711,605 won in February 2, 2017, the wage of 2,711,605 won in March 2, 2017, the wage of 2,274,249 won in March 2, 2017, and the wage of 3 workers in March 2, 207,603,096 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties concerned.

(b) An employer who violates the guarantee of retirement benefits of an employee shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred, in cases where the employee retires;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay 36,424,34 won for 10 employees, including 5,891,722 won for E's retirement pay from June 12, 2013 to April 9, 2017 at the above workplace, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

2. Each of the instant offenses may not be prosecuted against the employee’s explicit will pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

However, after the prosecution of this case, workers wish to punish the defendant.

arrow