logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.10.22 2020고정223
근로자퇴직급여보장법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative director of C, a stock company in Jeju, who is located in B, and is engaged in a service business using 40 full-time workers.

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.

However, the date of payment may be extended through an agreement between the parties.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the above workplace from September 3, 2018 to October 10 of the same year, did not pay KRW 3,36,296 in total of two workers’ wages, including KRW 1,418,956 in September 2018, and KRW 417,340 in October 14, 2018 in the same workplace from June 14, 2018 to October 31 of the same year, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of payment period, within 14 days from the date of retirement.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall pay a retirement allowance within fourteen days from the date of retirement, if a worker retires;

However, the date of payment may be extended through an agreement between the parties.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from June 20, 2016 to August 4, 2017.

The retirement allowance of the retired worker was not paid 7,194,140 won in total from the date of retirement within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as shown in the attached list of crimes, including 3,245,700 won of the F retirement allowance of the retired worker.

2. The case is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 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 proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. The record reveals the intent to punish the Defendant after the prosecution of this case.

arrow