The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant is the representative of the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Jung-gu Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., who employs eight full-time workers and operates the leisure sport leisure business. A.

When a worker dies or retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred: Provided, That the period may, under special circumstances, be extended by mutual agreement between the parties concerned.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from March 28, 2012 to February 15, 2016, did not pay KRW 4,178,571, including the total amount of wages of KRW 1,500,000 for retired workers D on January 2, 2016, and KRW 2,678,571 for February 2, 2016, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment.

(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 of such payment occurred: Provided, That the payment date may be extended under special circumstances, by mutual agreement between the parties concerned; and

Nevertheless, the defendant did not pay the retirement allowance of KRW 19,138,547 to the above worker D within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the payment date between the parties.

2. The key issue of this case and the judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel in this case are disputing the existence of employee status, the amount of wages and retirement allowances, the defendant's violation of the Labor Standards Act and the defendant's intentional violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, in order to judge them.

The status of D during the period at issue in the instant case as to whether it is an employee under the Labor Standards Act was “E”, and thus, the instant case is limited to the worker nature of “manman” in this case.