logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.07.07 2015고정350
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative of the Dcafeteria in the Yansan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, who ordinarily employs four workers and operates the food-raising business.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from July 2, 2013 to November 18, 2014 at the above workplace.

On November 2014, part of the wages of E 1,098,700 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.

(b) When a worker retires, the employer shall 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 is working from July 2, 2013 to November 18, 2014 at the above workplace.

The retirement allowance of retired E was not paid 2,706,960 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violating the Labor Standards Act is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act. The charge of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits is a crime falling under 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 the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records in the instant case, the victim E expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the Defendant around July 7, 20

arrow