logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.07.05 2018고단782
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The defendant is the representative of the corporation C in Pyeongtaek-si B, who was engaged in manufacturing business until December 31, 2017, using 16 full-time workers as the representative of the corporation in Pyeongtaek-si B.

1. An employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker retires, pay the worker wages, etc. within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless agreed by the parties concerned;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the total of 45,50,000 won of the wages of 16 workers within 14 days from June 1, 2011 to September 30, 2017, including that of 45,50,000 workers D who were employed in the said workplace and were retired from the said workplace, without any agreement between the parties, within 14 days from the date on which the grounds for payment occurred, as shown in the attached crime list, as shown in the attached crime list.

2. An employer who violates the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for a worker shall, in cases where the worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless agreed by the parties concerned;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the total of 161,787,038 of 16 retirement allowances as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including that the Defendant worked in the said workplace from June 1, 201 to September 30, 201, and did not pay KRW 33,413,719 of retirement allowances of retired workers D within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment occurred without the agreement between the parties.

Judgment

Each of the above crimes 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 is not prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

In this regard, the prosecution of this case is instituted.

arrow