logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.01.24 2018고정511
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is an employer who operates the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Category B and C (State)D.

1. When an employee dies or retires, the employer shall pay wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless agreed by the parties concerned regarding the extension of the due date;

From February 1, 2016 to July 5, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 4,694,430, and KRW 5,066,66, and KRW 9,766,096, to two workers, including the total wage of KRW 4,69,430, and KRW 5,00,00,000,000,000 from January 11, 2016 to July 16, 2017, within 14 days from the date of retirement, although there was no agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the date on which the cause for such payment occurred, unless otherwise agreed by the parties concerned.

From February 1, 2016 to July 5, 2017, the Defendant, despite the absence of an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment, did not pay 6,05,536 won in total, including 2,96,838 won of retirement allowances of employees E, who worked in the said Note, and 3,058,698 won from January 11, 2016 to July 16, 2017, and 6,05,536 won in total, who worked in the said Note, within 14 days from the date of retirement, even though there was no agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The crime of non-compliance with judgment: Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, the proviso to Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits (E and F) shall be a judgment dismissing a declaration of non-compliance with punishment after the prosecution of this case: Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act

arrow