logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.09.20 2019고정396
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant in the facts charged is the actual operator of the branch office C Honam Co., Ltd. in the Dong-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, and the second floor, who ordinarily employs three workers and operates service business.

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

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working at the same workplace from September 15, 2015 to November 26, 2017.

D's total wage of KRW 9,420,00 from August 2017 to November 201, 2017 was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

[Violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act] When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the time when the cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working at the same workplace from September 15, 2015 to November 26, 2017.

The retirement allowance of 7,095,000 won was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Each of the above facts charged is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017) and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the employee’s will expressed in accordance with Article 109(2) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017) and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records, the employee D wishes to punish the Defendant after the instant public prosecution was instituted.

arrow