신분보장받을 권리확인 청구의 소
1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. Grounds for review of the Plaintiff’s assertion
A. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is an administrative case that confirms that the plaintiff was at a disadvantage in relation to his status due to trade union activities, and although this court rendered an administrative decision subject to a trial by an administrative court, which is the competent court, rendered a judgment by an appellate court as to the judgment of the first instance that dealt with it as civil cases. Thus, there is a ground for retrial that constitutes "when the court of a judgment is not constituted under the law" under Article 451 (1)
B. Although the Plaintiff submitted evidence No. 8-17 as evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion during the trial, this court did not make any judgment on the above evidence. Such judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment”.
2. Determination
A. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff, a member of the Defendant, committed the instant disciplinary action at the end of the Plaintiff’s activities for improving working conditions, was subject to “the disadvantage in relation to the status arising from union activities,” and thus, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement for KRW 20,000,100 and damages for delay for the Defendant’s “right to be guaranteed status” under Article 12 of the Rules of the Defendant and subparagraph 1 of the attached Table on Guarantee of Status, on the ground that there was “the right to be guaranteed status” against the Defendant, and the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there was no evidence to regard the instant disciplinary action as falling under “a disadvantage in relation to the status arising from union activities” under Article 12 of the Rules of the Defendant, and the court, upon the Plaintiff’s appeal, cited the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and further,