logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.06.26 2014고정744
근로기준법위반등
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the defendant as the representative of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, who is running a Chinese restaurant with ten full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay wages, annual unused allowances, overtime and holiday work allowances, total amount of KRW 5,203,025 of workers E, who worked in the said workplace from November 29, 201 to October 8, 2013, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant wage has not been paid to E from the investigative agency to the court, but this is due to the fact that E had left his place of business without permission and could not proceed with the retirement procedure due to unknown whereabouts.

An employer is naturally obligated to pay wages under the Labor Standards Act if a labor relationship is established between the employee and the employee, or in extenuating circumstances where the employee is unable to pay wages or retirement allowances, there is no possibility of lawful expectation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do204, Feb. 23, 2001; 2005Do157, Apr. 15, 2005). Therefore, it is problematic whether the Defendant could not pay wages of this case since there was no way to pay wages of this case within 14 days after retirement due to his unknown whereabouts.

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the records of this case, the defendant was unable to pay wages and retirement allowances for October 2013 of this case within the prescribed period prescribed by the Labor Standards Act due to the failure to escape from and contact with E without permission. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

① On November 29, 2011, E is a Chinese citizen, and is employed in the “D” operated by the Defendant.

arrow