beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.12 2016가합576216

해고무효확인

Text

1. The part of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim for nullification of dismissal shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

2. Term of contract: The wage terms from January 4, 2013 to January 5, 2014

(a) Conditions for benefits: Monthly basic pay of KRW 2,500,000 ( KRW 1,100,000), meal ( KRW 100,00), annual allowances ( KRW 95,933), extension allowances ( KRW 315,311), job allowances ( KRW 663,756) - Monthly entry and departure from office, and payment on a daily basis at the time of absence;

(b) Pay: Payment by the benefit passbook as of the end of the current month (Provided, That in the case of a public holiday, it shall be made from the first day of the preceding month to the last day of the preceding month);

6. Working hours: 10:00 to 21:00, from 11:00 to 22:00 (including hours of recess three hours), but may be changed depending on the store circumstances.

7. Holidays;

(a) In principle, the fourth day off a month shall be a day off;

(b) A paid leave shall be granted in cases under the Act, such as reserve forces and civil defense drills;

From 2010 to 2010, the Defendant was running a restaurant with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant store”) on the first floor of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Building C, and the Plaintiff was dismissed on December 12, 2013 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

The main contents of the employment contract concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) are as follows:

B. On April 18, 2013, the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service discovered that a violation of the obligation to indicate the place of origin was discovered while cooking and selling to customers the instant store in Schina for Schina, Schina from January 4, 2013 to April 18, 2013. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 7,000,000 as a fine for violation of the Act on Labeling of the Origin of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “violation of the Agricultural Products Act”).

On September 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for formal trial on the premise that the subject of punishment for the summary order of KRW 7,000,000 should be the Defendant, not himself/herself, and that the amount of fine is excessive.

C. One of the defendant's dismissal against the plaintiff is formal trial as to the above summary order.