해고무효확인 등
1. The part concerning the claim for nullification of dismissal, among the instant lawsuits, shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. On September 7, 2012, the Defendant is a company whose purpose is combined freight forwarding business and freight forwarding business, and the Plaintiff entered the employment contract with the Defendant company and entered into an employment contract with the term from September 7, 2012 to September 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) and served as a hazardous material safety manager.
B. On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from May 30, 2013 to July 29, 2013 due to the recurrence of nephal rootss, among those who were trying to load and unload goods by Defendant Company.
C. The Defendant Company dismissed the Plaintiff as of June 18, 2013, and reported his dismissal as of July 8, 2013, while paying wages to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal is legitimate
A. We examine ex officio the validity of the part of the instant lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal.
If the term of the employment contract is terminated after the dismissal, it is difficult to view that it is valid and appropriate to obtain the judgment of nullification of the dismissal to recover the original status and status based on the employment contract. Therefore, there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal in principle.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da199 delivered on May 18, 200, 200. (b)
In full view of the purport of the argument as to the instant case’s health account and evidence Nos. 2, Article 3 of the instant employment contract provides that “the term of employment contract is up to September 7, 2013, and if the said contract term expires, the contract shall be deemed terminated” and it can be acknowledged that a new employment contract has not been concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company until September 7, 2013, which is the expiration date of the said contract term.