logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.06.29 2016고단1543
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the C representative in Si interesting City B, who ordinarily employs ten workers and operates a manufacturing business.

1. An employer shall, if a worker retires, pay the wages, compensations, and all 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.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 15,286,580, respectively, within 14 days from the date of each retirement, as well as KRW 3,330,00 of the D’s wages in June 1, 2015, which had worked in the said workplace from July 1, 2014 to July 4, 2015, as well as KRW 15,286,580, as in the daily extension of the payment period between the parties, as in the attached money and valuables in arrears.

2. An employer shall, if a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance 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 did not pay the total of KRW 7,180,238, as well as KRW 3,300,000 of D’s retirement pay, which had been employed from July 1, 2014 to July 4, 2015 at the above workplace, within 14 days from each retirement date, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment period between the parties, as in the daily table of money in arrears in the attached Form.

2. The facts charged of the instant case pertains to a crime 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, which cannot be prosecuted against the employee’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, or the proviso to Article 44 of the Workers’ Retirement Benefit Security Act, and the said employee’s intent not to prosecute the Defendant on June 20, 2016, after the instant indictment was instituted.

arrow