logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 경주지원 2015.11.26 2015고단780
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the representative of the Co., Ltd. C at the time of racing, is an employer who runs the manufacturing business by employing ten full-time workers.

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the worker wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while working in the foregoing workplace and retired on June 1, 2015, did not pay KRW 2,133,400 on December 12, 2014, wage of KRW 3,250,000 on January 1, 2015, wage of KRW 3,320,000 on February 3, 2015, wage of KRW 3,270,000 on March 3, 2015, wage of KRW 3,200,000 on April 1, 2015, wage of KRW 2,40,00,000 on May 1, 205, wage of KRW 2,40,00 on annual paid leave, KRW 864,248, KRW 371,930 on annual paid leave, and KRW 18,879,578 on the date of payment, without agreement between the parties.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while working in the above workplace, did not pay KRW 4,572,355 of the retirement allowances of retired workers D on June 1, 2015 within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is a crime falling under 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, and thus, cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act or Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records, the victim, after the instant indictment was instituted, expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant. Thus, the prosecution in the instant case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow