부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial of the court of first instance while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the already asserted contents in the trial of the court of first instance. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows 2. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as to the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance as follows 3. Thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the reasons for the judgment as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
2. On March 31, 2012, following the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court concluded a delegation agreement with the Intervenor Company from March 31, 2012 to the effect that “The Intervenor Company had concluded” was to serve as a director, vice president, or head of Seoul Branch of the Intervenor Company and the Intervenor Company on May 18, 2012 (hereinafter “instant delegation agreement”), and concluded that the delegation agreement would be retroactive to March 31, 2012.”
On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into the instant delegation contract with the Plaintiff on March 31, 2012, and agreed to take effect retroactively on March 31, 2012. The main contents of the contract are as follows.
7 5 to 8 of the judgment of the first instance court was prepared from "the plaintiff".
(b)Before “the plaintiff has signed his/her written resignation and accepted it by the employee.”
The plaintiff was processed from “the plaintiff,” the 7th page 9, the 10th 10th 1 of the first instance judgment.
up to “The Plaintiff exercised the final authority to approve the expenditures of the employees at the Seoul Branch of the previous company and the Intervenor Company.”
“Ch. The second page 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by the attached Table. Following the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, “from May 2012 to June 2012” shall be read as “from June 2012”.
3. The plaintiff.