logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.06.27 2014고정1632
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the user who runs a construction business with four full time workers as the representative of the company C and D Co., Ltd. located in the building in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

An employer, when a worker retires, shall pay retirement allowances within 14 days from the date when the cause for such payment occurred (Provided, That in special circumstances, the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties), and the defendant did not pay retirement allowances of E, which he/she worked in the said C Co., Ltd. from January 11, 2012 to February 13, 2013, within 14 days from the date of retirement without mutual agreement between the parties concerned about the extension of the due date.

B. An employer shall, if a worker retires, pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days from the date when the cause for such payment occurred (Provided, That the due date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, if special circumstances exist), and the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,600,000, total of the wages of 1,30,000,000 in October 1, 2013 who worked at D Co., Ltd. from July 1, 2013 to December 11, 2013; and the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,60,000 in November 20, 2013 within 14 days from the date of retirement without any mutual agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. The determination is based on the following facts: (a) an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act; and (b) Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act cannot be prosecuted against each victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act; and (c) proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act; and (d) records reveal that the victim E expressed his/her wish not to punish the Defendant around May 27, 2014, after the instant public prosecution was instituted. Thus, the public prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act

arrow