임금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of this court is as to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the “the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim” in Section 2, Section 18 of the judgment of first instance as “the Plaintiff’s claim 2.” and the “amount equivalent to the wages” in Section 2, Section 21 is added after the “amount equivalent to the unpaid English resources allowances”. Except for the addition of the “additional Judgment” as to the additional assertion by the Plaintiff in this court, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the reconciliation in the instant case does not include wages under the Labor Standards Act from February 18, 2016 to March 27, 2016, which are the period of unfair removal from position against the Defendant’s Plaintiff, and thus null and void as it constitutes an anti-social order legal act under Article 103 of the Civil Act. ② The Plaintiff’s settlement in the instant case was conducted with the emotional, mental, and economicly unfair terms that are considerably unfair in trust and in good faith between the Labor Relations Commission and the Defendant’s end, and thus, constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act.
B. The following circumstances are revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 4, and 5, which show the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was unfair by the defendant, and the plaintiff was brought to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 2, 2016, which was brought to the trial proceedings on June 2, 2016, where the plaintiff and the defendant were present at both the court and the defendant accepted the same settlement proposal as the contents of the above reconciliation in the Labor Relations Commission. The plaintiff confirmed the contents of the conciliation protocol in this case, and signed on the part of the plaintiff after verifying the content of the conciliation protocol in this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27270, Jun. 2, 2016>