logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.03.13 2014고정2174
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is the D representative of the fourth floor of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building Co., Ltd. who operates the manufacturing industry by employing 12 full-time workers.

[Violation of the Labor Standards Act] When an employee dies or retires, the employer shall pay wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within 14 days from the date on which the cause for such payment occurred, but the Defendant is working as a designer from August 1, 201 to August 31, 2013.

Withdrawn E’s wages of KRW 3,00,000 on July 7, 2013, and total of KRW 3,000,000 on August’s wages of KRW 3,000,000 on August’s payment date was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment date.

[Violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act] When an employee retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the date on which the ground for such payment occurred, but the Defendant works as a designer from August 1, 201 to August 31, 2013.

The retirement allowance of retired E was not paid KRW 6,126,860 within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. Each of the facts charged in this case is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits

However, according to the trial records of this case, it can be recognized that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant after instituting the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution against the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow