logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.09.10 2014고단445
근로기준법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. From 2008 to 301, the Defendant, as the representative director of the Seoul Jung-gu E-building 301, employed 31 full-time workers in the cable Internet installation business.

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

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay 4,471,854 won, including 308,786 won in April 2012 for workers G at a workplace (Extended Work Allowance) and 4,471,854 won in total for six retired workers, as shown in the attached Table 1 of Crimes List 1, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties concerned.

2. An employer shall, in addition to the ordinary wages, pay fifty percent or more thereof for overtime work;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 47,268,173 to the employees Ha who worked from May 4, 201 to March 2013 at the workplace, including KRW 457,653 in March 2012, as indicated in the attached Table 2 of the Crimes List 2.

(Application Law: Articles 109(1), 36, and 56 of the Labor Standards Act)

2. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion that the defendant and defense counsel are the representative director of the Fund in charge of the dispute resolution (hereinafter "F") and the defendant concluded a comprehensive wage agreement or a partial comprehensive wage agreement with the worker in this case with respect to the part of one hour exceeding eight hours a day and settled and paid all including the wages as stated in the facts charged, and even if it is not so, the defendant has a reason to dispute the existence of the obligation to pay wages and the scope thereof, and there is considerable reason for the non-payment.

arrow