logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.01.20 2016고정565
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant in the facts charged of this case is the actual manager of C Co., Ltd. in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, who used 11 full-time workers and is an employer.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay him/her wages, compensations, or other money or valuables within 14 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.

However, the Defendant did not pay 4.6 million won in total, including 1,615,195 won in February 2, 2016, and 2,84,805 won in March 2016, as wages of 1,615,195 won in the said workplace from December 12, 2013 to March 31, 2016, and 4.4.6 million won in total, as wages of 1,615,195 won in February 2016, and wages of 2,84,805 won in March 2016, within 14 days from the date on which the cause for such payment occurred, without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

(b) An employer who violates the guarantee of retirement benefits of an employee shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred, in cases where the employee retires;

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

However, the defendant did not pay 10,000 won of retirement allowance of d's retirement allowance of 1040,000 won as above at the above place of business within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date when the ground for payment occurred, without agreement between the parties on the extension of payment period.

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

According to the records, the victim shall be punished against the defendant on December 13, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

arrow