logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.07.06 2018고단1482
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is an employer as the actual operator of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (State)C.

(a) An employer who violates the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker dies or retires, pay the worker wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless the parties have agreed to extend the payment deadline;

From November 5, 2015 to January 31, 2018, the Defendant did not pay 13,66,120 won in total for four workers as indicated in the attached crime list, including KRW 4,450,00,00 of workers D wages, who worked in the above Section C from November 5, 2018, within 14 days from the date of retirement, even though there was no agreement between the parties on the extension of payment period.

(b) An employer who violates the Act on Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of Workers shall, in cases where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the date on which the grounds for such payment occurred, unless the parties have agreed to extend the payment deadline.

From November 5, 2015 to January 31, 2018, the Defendant did not pay 24,809,530 won, including 4,884,000 won for employees D who worked in the above (State)C, within 14 days from the date of retirement, even though there was no agreement between the parties on the extension of payment period, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

2. The violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the unpaid payment of wages and the violation of the Act on Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits due to unpaid retirement allowances cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent (Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits), and on May 25, 2018, the victims expressed their intent not to be punished by the Defendant. Thus, the instant indictment is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow