logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.07.17 2019고정305
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant is an employer, who is the representative director of the CC Co., Ltd. located at the window B of Gyeongwon-si, Changwon-si, who ordinarily employs 20 workers and is engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic control equipment.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and 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, from February 15, 2017 to June 8, 2018, the Defendant did not pay two workers, including 6,549,190 won in total, and 16,579,010 won in total, within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of a cause for payment without agreement on extension of payment between the parties, within the period from February 15, 2018 to June 6, 2018, and 314,620 won in year-end settlement refund and 314,620 won in workers E who worked as an electronic development institute from April 27, 2015 to January 12, 2018.

(b) 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 did not pay the sum of KRW 13,40,000 retirement pay of KRW 3,520,000, and KRW 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, to the date of the extension of the payment between the parties, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date, as KRW 13,40,00,00, an appellant, who worked as the Electronic Development Institute, from April 27, 2015 to January 12, 2018.

2. Each of the facts charged in this case’s judgment is subject to Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, or Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

arrow