logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.06 2016고정1113
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the actual manager of the Daegu Jung-gu Building B, 1705.

(a) An employer who violates the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker dies or retires, pay the worker wages, compensations, and any other money or valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

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

The Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 1,200,00 in May 23, 2015, the wages of KRW 2,200,00 in June 2015, the total of KRW 1,613,340 in July 2015, and KRW 5,013,340 in July 2015, as well as KRW 1,100,000 in May 2015, and KRW 2,100,000,00 in June 20, 2015, including KRW 4,740,00 in July 2015, and KRW 9,753,740 in July 3, 200 within one day without an agreement between the parties on retirement from office.

(b) An employer who violates the Act on Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of Workers shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the grounds for payment occur, in cases where the worker retires;

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

The Defendant did not pay KRW 6,844,210 in total, including KRW 3,481,310 and E retirement pay of KRW 3,362,90, and KRW 6,844,210 in total, who worked in the said workplace on July 23, 2015, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

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

According to the records, D, E, June 2, 2016, after the prosecution of this case was instituted, shall be the defendant to this court.

arrow