logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2016.06.10 2016고단407
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is an employer who runs a manufacturing business by employing five full-time workers as the representative of C in Haak-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay him/her wages, compensations, or other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;

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

However, Defendant D did not pay the total of five million won of wages, including the wage of 600,000 won for May 2015, 2015, wage of 310,000 won for June 2015, and wage of 130,000 won for July 2015, without any agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties to the said workplace from December 26, 2013 to July 18, 2015.

(b) An employer who violates the guarantee of retirement benefits of an employee shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred, in cases where the employee retires;

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

Even so, Defendant D did not pay KRW 3.7 million of retirement allowances of retired workers D within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the relevant payment cause, without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment period between the parties, while working as a machine operator from December 26, 2013 to July 18, 2015 at the said place of business.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are the crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, or Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Workers’ Retirement Benefit Security Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, or the proviso to Article 44 of the Workers’ Retirement Benefit Security Act.

According to the records, the victim D was prosecuted on May 2016 after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

arrow