logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 상주지원 2017.06.20 2017고정21
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged [Status of the Parties] The Defendant is a legal manager of C in Youngcheon-si, Co., Ltd., Ltd., who runs a construction business with 30 full-time workers.

【Specific Contents】

1. 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 date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not pay the D's wages of KRW 3,00,000, paid holiday work allowances of KRW 7,090,000, which were retired from office from July 6, 2015 to July 8, 2016 under the above workplace within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

2. An employer who violates the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of a worker shall pay a retirement allowance 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 did not pay KRW 2,90,940 of retirement allowances of retired workers D within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the payment deadline between the parties, while working from July 6, 2015 to July 8, 2016 under the above workplace.

Judgment

This part of the facts charged is an offense falling under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 subparag. 1 of the Guarantee of Wage for Workers’ Retirement. Pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Wage for Workers’ Retirement, a public prosecution may not be instituted against the explicit intent of the victimized employee.

Since D expressed his/her intention not to be punished for the defendant after the prosecution, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow