logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.03.15 2018고단4932
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of D Co., Ltd., located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B, who runs food manufacturing and processing business using 38 full-time workers.

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

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

Nevertheless, the defendant works from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2018 at the above workplace.

Retired E’s wages of 2,404,868 won and from May 2, 2017 to November 30, 2017.

The retired F's wages totaling KRW 6,529,266 of the total amount of KRW 4,124,398 was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on extension of the due date.

(b) 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

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

Nevertheless, the defendant did not pay KRW 7,000,000 as retirement pay to the above E within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.

2. Determination

(a) Applicable provisions of Acts: Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparagraph 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act;

(b) Crimes of non-violation of will: Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

C. After the prosecution of this case, workers E and F expressed their wish not to punish the defendant.

(d) Judgment dismissing public prosecution: Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

arrow