logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.10 2019고정853
근로기준법위반등
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the representative director of C, a company located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and is an employer who runs software and game development business using seven full-time workers.

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 worked in the foregoing workplace from September 5, 2016 to October 31, 2018, and did not pay the total of KRW 12,14,50,000 from the date of retirement within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties, as well as KRW 2,430,335, and KRW 2,427,960 in June 2018, and KRW 2,427,960 in September 2018, and KRW 2,427,960 in October 2, 2018.

(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 payment date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked from September 5, 2016 to October 31, 2018 at the above workplace, and did not pay KRW 11,425,398 of retirement allowances of retired workers D within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in this 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, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

However, according to the records, the facts charged in this case are examined.

arrow