logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.02.21 2017고정1254
근로기준법위반
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer of the facts charged shall pay him/her wages, compensations, or other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;

except that if there are special circumstances, the date may be extended by an agreement between the parties.

Defendant

A The Defendant is an employer who was awarded a lump sum subcontract for the said new construction work by a D Company, which is a contractor for new construction of multi-household housing in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and performed construction work with seven full-time workers from October 15, 2014 to January 2, 2015.

From October 17, 2014 to December 31, 2014, the Defendant shall work in the relevant workplace.

The retired E’s total amount of KRW 38,705,00,000, including the wage of KRW 1,050,000 on October 2014, was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as shown in the attached list of crimes (A).

B. Defendant B is the owner of the said new construction project and the employer who subcontracted the said new construction project from F, the ordering person, around January 7, 2015, using 7 full-time workers from January 7, 2015 to January 28, 2015.

The defendant shall work in the above workplace from January 7, 2015 to January 20, 2015.

The retired E’s wages totaling KRW 9,310,00,000, including the wage of KRW 450,000 on January 1, 2015, was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as shown in the attached list of crimes (B).

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act.

However, according to the records, it is recognized that the injured workers after the prosecution of this case expressed their intention not to punish the defendant in this court.

arrow