부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. An intervenor is a company established on January 18, 199 and ordinarily employs 5,772 workers and operates the dispatch business, etc. of workers.
B. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a contract for temporary agency work with the Intervenor for a one-year contract period (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) and received a notice from the Intervenor as of June 24, 2014 that the instant employment contract is terminated (hereinafter “instant notice”) as of July 24, 2014 while dispatched to the Busan Urban Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Busan Urban Gas”), a stock company (hereinafter “ Busan Urban Gas”).
C. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant notification was unfair and applied for remedy to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on October 2, 2014, but the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for remedy on November 27, 2014 on the ground that “the instant contract was terminated due to the expiration of the contract term.”
(hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).
On December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On February 10, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the instant initial inquiry court.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 14, 18, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion explicitly stated that the term of service was “1-year dispatch contract worker” in the notice of employment, and explained to the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff may work for two years, unless there are special circumstances, even though the contract was concluded by the Dispatch Act on a yearly basis, it would be possible to work for two years, and the salary would be increased after one year.”
An intervenor is requested to dispatch workers for a period of two years from the user company. It is clear that the plaintiff entered into the labor contract in this case with the employer.
Therefore, it is true.