logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.02.12 2015고정2954
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the actual representative of the Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., which is the charge, is an employer who operates the machinery manufacturing business by employing five full-time workers.

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay him/her wages, compensations for accidents, and all 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 worked from June 20, 2013 to December 3, 2014, and retired from office D’s wages of 330,945, Nov. 1, 2014, and wages of 4,50,00,000, and wages of 307,692 on December 20, 2014, did not pay KRW 5,138,637 within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties.

2. An employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred, if a worker retires;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked from June 20, 2013 to December 3, 2014, and did not pay KRW 4,021,892 of D retirement pay within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, a violation of the Labor Standards Act is a crime 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. A violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits is a crime falling under Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the same Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the proviso to Article 44 of the same Act.

However, according to the records of this case, the victim against the defendant on February 12, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

arrow