logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2014.05.16 2014고정181
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is the user who operates construction business with thirty regular workers employed as the real representative of the C Co., Ltd. located in the Jeonju-si.

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and 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.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from May 27, 2012 to October 17, 2013 at the above workplace.

On October 2013, 2013, wages of KRW 1,000,000 were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from May 27, 2012 to October 17, 2013 at the above workplace.

3,137,670 won of retirement allowances of retired workers D was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

However, a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

However, according to the records of this case, D had withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on April 23, 2014 after the institution of the public prosecution of this case. Thus, D is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow