logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.07.04 2016고단2350
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is the defendant, as the representative director of the Seoul Central Office of Public Interest Co., Ltd. (State), who is engaged in fire-fighting facility business with ten full-time workers.

1. When an employee in violation of the Labor Standards Act retires, the employer shall pay him/her wages within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from March 4, 2013 to May 20, 2016, did not pay KRW 5,583,333 to the retired workers D in August 2015, and did not pay KRW 119,007,409, total wage for six workers, as indicated in the attached crime list, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of payment date between the parties.

2. An employer who violates the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for Workers shall pay the wages within fourteen days after the ground for such payment occurred, in case where the worker retires; and

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from March 4, 2013 to May 20, 2016, did not pay KRW 18,078,281 to D retirement allowances for retired workers while working in the said workplace, and did not pay KRW 66,938,474 in total for five employees, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of payment period between the parties.

Judgment

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

According to the records, each of the damaged workers is prosecuted.

arrow