logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.11.17 2020고단2123
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the representative of Co., Ltd. C at the time of Kimpo-si, is an employer who ordinarily employs six workers from December 2013 to run document short-term manufacturing business. A.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act 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 did not pay KRW 2,252,450 to the victim D’s unused working from June 2, 2014 to November 15, 2019 within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment occurred without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, 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 did not pay 3,290,320 won, excluding money and valuables paid in installments after retirement, during the period of his/her service from June 2, 2014 to November 15, 2019, 3,290,320 won, excluding money and valuables paid in installments during the period of his/her service from June 2, 2014 to November 15, 2019, within 14 days from the date when the cause for

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those 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, which cannot be 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.

However, according to the records of this case, the victim expressed his intention not to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case.

arrow