logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.06.13 2019고정198
근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of corporation C in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, who runs the security business using 18 full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 2,264,278 of D retirement pay within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement, who worked from August 1, 2016 to June 25, 2018 at the same place of business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a petition;

1. Article 44 of the relevant Act on criminal facts and Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act and the Selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that the sum of KRW 2,100,130 was included in the monthly salary upon D’s prior application for retirement pay and demand for interim settlement of accounts.

2. In a case where an employer and an employee agreed to pay a certain amount of money in advance, along with a monthly or daily allowance paid by the employer and the employee, the agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which is a mandatory law, because the employee renounces his/her right to claim a retirement allowance accrued when the last retirement is not acknowledged as an interim settlement of the retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement

There is no validity of retirement allowance payment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011). In cases where an employee requests for reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as housing purchase, the term “employer” under Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act refers to the period of continuous employment of the relevant employee before his/her retirement.

arrow