logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2020.05.08 2020고단880
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The Defendant, as the representative of Sungnam-si B and C on the first floor in Sungnam-si, is an employer who runs a restaurant business using one full-time worker.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer who has violated the obligation to liquidate money or valuables shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 42,00,000 in total, as shown in the attached crime list, as well as KRW 2,000,000, which worked in the above workplace from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2019, as well as KRW 42,00,000 in total, as shown in the attached crime list, within 14 days from the date on which the cause for the payment occurred, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

(b) Where a worker retires, the unpaid employer shall pay the retirement allowance within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 18,793,917 of D retirement pay, which had worked from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2019 at the above workplace, within 14 days from the date of retirement in which the cause for the payment occurred without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 16270, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter the same) and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the former Labor Standards Act and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

According to the records, the employee D expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant on April 21, 2020 after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow