Labor Law Office | Labor Law Office Helps Vindicate a Client Charged with Violating the Labor Standards Act

Labor Standards Act Article 36 (Settlement of Money and Valuables)

Where a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensation, and all other money and valuables within 14 days from the date the cause for such payment arises. However, where special circumstances exist, the due date may be extended by agreement between the parties.

Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act Article 9 (Payment of Retirement Benefits, etc.)

(1) Where a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement benefits within 14 days from the date the cause for such payment arises. However, where special circumstances exist, the payment due date may be extended by agreement between the parties.

(2) The retirement benefits under paragraph (1) shall be paid by transferring them to the account of an individual retirement pension plan designated by the worker or to an account under Article 23-8 (hereinafter referred to as the “account of an individual retirement pension plan, etc.”). However, this shall not apply where there are grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where the worker retires after reaching the age of 55 and receives benefits.

(3) Where a worker does not designate an account of an individual retirement pension plan, etc. under paragraph (2), the benefits shall be transferred to an account of an individual retirement pension plan held in the worker's name.

The labor law office wholly denied the allegation of unpaid allowances asserted by the employee.

Unlike an ordinary workplace, the worker was working in a special environment and was receiving a special allowance.

The client paid the special allowance as wages for overtime and nighttime work.

Daeryun's labor law office argued, through the client's bank statements and accounting records, that the client had not failed to pay the employee's allowances but had instead paid the wages under the category of a special allowance.

The labor law office argued that the client had paid the retirement benefits in the name of the employee's wife at the employee's request.

Both the employee and his wife were workers employed by the client's company, and the employee, due to circumstances such as a provisional attachment, asked the client to pay the retirement benefits into his wife's account.

Daeryun's labor law office submitted as evidence the client's text messages containing these contents and the records of the retirement benefits paid into the wife's account.