A. 1) The Defendant is a legal entity established for passenger transportation services, etc., and the Plaintiff has provided the Defendant with labor as an urban bus driver. 2) On April 9, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to change the Plaintiff from the Incheon Yeonsu-gu Seoul garage route to the D garage route (hereinafter “instant transfer order”).

Accordingly, when the Plaintiff raised an objection and refused to serve on board, the Defendant suspended the Plaintiff from serving on board (hereinafter “instant suspension of serving on board”) on April 15, 2015.

3) On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy of unfair transfer and unfair suspension of work with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. On June 4, 2015, the said Labor Relations Commission revoked the transfer order and the suspension of work on board within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication with respect to the Defendant, and determined the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been paid if the Defendant had worked normally for the same period. (iv) On August 10, 2015, the Defendant revoked the suspension of work on board to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff wages that the Plaintiff would have received while working normally from April 15, 2015 to August 9, 2015, the period of suspension of working on board, which is the Plaintiff’s period of suspension of working.

2. Scope of wages;

A. The relevant legal principle 1) When an employer’s unfair dismissal disposition is invalidated or revoked, the status as an employee who intends to be damaged has been continued, and the employee’s failure to provide labor between them is attributable to the employer and the employee’s failure to provide labor may claim payment of the entire amount of wages that the employee is entitled to receive when he/she continues to provide labor under Article 538(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Da626, Dec. 22, 198; 81Da626, Nov. 21, 195).