logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2015.06.26 2015고단233
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative director of Section C in Daegu-gu, is a user who runs a water manufacturing business using six full-time workers.

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 cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while working in the above workplace on March 1, 2014, did not pay KRW 3,833,32 of the total amount of KRW 1,916,666 on January 1, 2014, and wage 1,916,666 on February 1, 2014, within 14 days from the date on which the cause for the 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, while working in the above workplace on January 1, 2014, did not pay the retirement pay of E-Retirement Allowance of retired workers on December 4, 2013, KRW 2,760,838, and the total sum of KRW 4,195,660, and KRW 12,491,838 of the retirement pay of retired workers D on March 1, 2014, within 14 days from the date on which the cause for the payment occurred, without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. Each of the facts charged above is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the latter part of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

However, according to the statement of withdrawal of each complaint filed in the trial records, each of the above.

arrow