logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2021.01.27 2020고정161
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

The defendant in the factory room is the representative of the D Co., Ltd. in the building B in the Yansan-gu, Jeonju-si, who ordinarily employs 40 workers and operates the construction business.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, an employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred: Provided, That the period of payment may, in special circumstances, be extended by mutual agreement between the parties concerned;

Nevertheless, the Defendant had worked from September 1, 2016 to July 18, 2019 at the same workplace and had retired workers E’ wages of KRW 1,238,710 on January 1, 2017, and paid KRW 3,686,40 on annual paid leave allowances, totaling KRW 4,925,110 on the date of payment between the parties, without any agreement on the extension of the date of payment between the parties.

(b) An employer shall, when a worker retires, pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred: Provided, That the period of payment may, in special circumstances, be extended by mutual agreement between the parties concerned;

Nevertheless, the defendant did not pay 13,463,486 won of retirement allowance E of retired workers on July 18, 2019 within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment period between the parties.

However, among the facts charged in this case, the violation of the Labor Standards Act is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 109(2) of the same Act provides that the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits is a crime falling under Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, and thus, it cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the same Act. Thus, the "not wishing to punish the defendant" was submitted after the prosecution in this case.

arrow