logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.12.08 2020고정604
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the representative director of the medical corporation B at the time of Kim Sea, is a user who operates a hospital affiliated to a medical corporation using 90 full-time workers.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay wages, retirement allowances, compensation, and all other money and valuables within 14 days from the date on which the cause for such payment occurred, unless otherwise agreed by the parties to the extension of the due date.

Nevertheless, the defendant is working in the above hospital from May 18, 2015 to January 18, 2020.

The retirement E’s total amount of KRW 13,245,793, including the total amount of KRW 975,00 in March 2018, KRW 1,950,00 in November 2019, and KRW 1,132,258 in January 2020, annual wage of KRW 267,200 in retirement allowance and KRW 8,921,335 in retirement allowance, etc., was not paid within 14 days from the date of E’s retirement without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including that the total amount of KRW 37,451,926 in total, including four workers’ wages and retirement allowances, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, was not paid within 14 days from the date of each worker’s retirement without any agreement on extension of the due date

2. The judgment is the case that falls under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits cannot be prosecuted 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. According to the records, the victims can recognize the fact that the victims submitted the written agreement after the prosecution of this case and expressed their wish not to punish the defendant. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow