부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
1. The defendant and the intervenor company's assertion in this court are not significantly different from the contents asserted in the first instance court by the defendant and the intervenor company, and even if the claims of the defendant and the intervenor company are reviewed together with the evidence submitted in the first instance court and this court, the plaintiff has legitimate expectation that the contract of this case can be renewed, and the rejection of the contract of this case cannot be recognized as reasonable, and thus, the decision of the first instance court that the contract of this case is null and void just as in the second instance
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part of deletion, addition, or replacement as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[The part of deletion, addition, or replacement] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., from 3 pages 15 to 20, is deleted.
At the first date for pleading of the trial, the defendant litigation performer and the attorney of the intervenor company stated as follows: “I do not dispute the existence of a renewal right of the plaintiff.”
From three pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, two cases or more are deleted. On four pages 8 of the judgment of first instance, the court of first instance also filed an application.
“The following shall be added:
In addition, the plaintiff tried to intervene in the management of the intervenor company by submitting a petition to the effect that the intervenor company's application for rehabilitation should not be accepted in the rehabilitation procedure of the intervenor company.
From the 9th judgment of the first instance court to the 5th judgment of the first instance court, the following acts are followed.
② On July 31, 2017, the prosecutor of the Chuncheon District Prosecutor’s Office rendered a disposition of suspending prosecution on the part of forging and exercising the Plaintiff’s former spouse H’s former spouse H’s loan certificate among the facts charged in the instant case. However, even if the Plaintiff were to be a participant company, the same is applicable.