logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.12.23 2016고단7368
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 the Namdong-gu, Incheon, and C, a corporation with No. 401-2, runs a manufacturing business using four full-time workers.

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the above workplace from May 18, 2015 to June 10, 2016, had been in service and retired from office on December 2015, and had not paid KRW 67,921,540 in total for four workers within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties concerned, as stated in the attached crime list, as well as KRW 2,823,880 in attached Table.

2. 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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 18,15,901 as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including KRW 4,374,377, as well as KRW 18,115,90,000, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 44 subparag. 1 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 of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. The victims expressed their intent not to be punished by the Defendant at this court on November 21, 2016, which was the date the instant prosecution was instituted, and thus, the instant prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6

arrow