logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 속초지원 2020.02.12 2019고정123
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the representative of C Hospital in the first place of the charge and is an employer who runs a health business using seven 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 did not pay KRW 3,916,68 in total, including D’s wages, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment between the parties.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW D retirement allowance of KRW 8,652,583, working from December 28, 2009 to July 4, 2018, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Each of the facts charged above is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 44 subparag. 1 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the latter part of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. According to the victim's written application for non-prosecution of punishment, the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 3

arrow