logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2016.08.11 2016고단647
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a user who runs software development business by ordinarily employing five workers as the representative of Co., Ltd. in Changwon-si, Masan-si B and 807.

1. When a worker dies or retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay him/her wages, compensations, or other money or valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 21,763,350, total sum of wages and annual settlement refund money, etc. as well as KRW 1,861,30,00, on June 2015, 2015 of retired workers D, who were employed by the software development department from November 3, 2003 to March 18, 2016, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the reasons for payment, without agreement on the extension of the payment deadline between the parties.

2. An employer who violates the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for a worker shall, in case where the worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the ground for such payment occurred; and

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 27,109,182 of the retirement pay of the employee D who retired from office as above in the above company within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the reasons for payment, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

Judgment

Each of the facts charged in the instant case is an offense 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.

On July 12, 2016, after the institution of the instant prosecution, the victim expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the Defendant in this court.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow