logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2015.07.15 2015고단544
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the representative of C in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, who is engaged in mechanical processing business with seven full-time workers. A. The Defendant is an employer.

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, working in the foregoing workplace from September 13, 2013 to November 29, 2014, and retired from office, did not pay the total of KRW 16,845,430 as well as KRW 471,00 per month of November 2014, as stated in the details of personal delayed payment money and other valuables in attached Form, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without any agreement between the parties on the 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 may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the foregoing workplace, worked from September 13, 2013 to November 29, 2014, and retired from the workplace, did not pay KRW 24,650,578 in total, including KRW 2,364,414, as stated in the details of personal delayed payment, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the relevant cause for payment, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The above facts charged are the crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, or 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 Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act or the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

According to the records, the victims of this case.

arrow