logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.31 2019고정934
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the representative of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon and the first floor C located, is an employer who runs retail business using two full-time workers. A.

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 did not pay KRW 4,029,00,00 as the sum of D’s wages 2,029,000 and E’s wages 2,00,000, which were worked from November 1, 2012 to September 10, 2018 at the same place of business, within 14 days from each date on which the cause for payment occurred, without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date for payment.

(b) An employer shall, if a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 30,987,016 in total, including KRW 11,471,114, as well as KRW 14,00 from November 1, 2012 to September 10, 2018, for D retirement pay of KRW 19,515,902, and KRW 14,016, which had worked in the said workplace from April 12, 2013 to August 31, 2018, within 14 days from the date of each of the grounds for payment, without agreement on extension of the due date for payment between the parties.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

However, according to the records, the defendant at this court on May 31, 2019, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted by D and E, the victims of the facts charged of this case.

arrow