Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 400,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The accused is the user who has been engaged in the business of manufacturing advertising materials and has been employed by five full time workers as the representative Co., Ltd. located in Gwangju Northern-gu B.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 10,387,050 of retirement pay from July 26, 2012 to April 17, 2017 to his/her retired worker D, who had worked in the said workplace from May 10, 2010 to April 17, 2017, within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement without an agreement on the extension of the payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. If there is any ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay the retirement allowance, the employer has good reason for failing to pay the retirement allowance;

Therefore, the employer had the intent to commit a violation of Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits.

It is difficult to recognize the existence and scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011). However, in a case where an employer paid retirement allowances by violating the compulsory laws and regulations stipulated in the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, etc., the employer is subject to the compulsory laws and regulations, even if he/she is subject to the punishment, and thus, there is a reason to challenge the legislative intent of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, barring special circumstances.

It is difficult to see it.

With respect to the instant case, the Defendant paid D retirement allowances, separately from monthly pay, in accordance with the interim settlement agreement for retirement allowances.

However, with respect to retirement allowances after July 26, 2012, the grounds for interim settlement under Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are statutory. Since July 26, 2012, there was no ground for interim settlement under the above Act and subordinate statutes at the time when the Defendant paid retirement allowances to D after July 26, 2012.

(a) on its own;