부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.
2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant and intervenor in the court of first instance to the determination of the argument of the defendant and intervenor in the court of first instance under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the reasoning of the court’s explanation
2. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and the intervenor in the trial room
A. 1) In addition to the circumstances alleged in the first instance trial as to whether the intervenor is a worker with no fixed period of time, the Plaintiff paid an weekly holiday allowance to the intervenor during the first instance trial as to whether the intervenor is an employee without a fixed period of time. The Plaintiff entered into a single-day contract with the intervenor to facilitate the dismissal of the intervenor or not, in order to ensure that the contract with the intervenor constitutes a continuous employment contract, the contract with the intervenor is substantially continuous employment contract, and thereby, the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-Term Act”).
Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Intervenor was daily employed by the Intervenor for about 3 months and 19 months is against the good faith principle, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Intervenor was a daily worker is merely a form that sets the period of employment on the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s daily basis constitutes a worker who does not have a fixed period of employment. Therefore, the instant notice constitutes dismissal. As such, the Intervenor did not notify the Plaintiff of the grounds for dismissal and the time of dismissal in writing, and the instant notice violates Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act, even if the Intervenor is a daily worker, the instant notice constitutes a daily worker. 2) Even if the Intervenor’s primary support work, such as washing materials, conducted by the Intervenor, is a regular and continuous work necessary for the hotel restaurant business, and the Plaintiff continued to renew the employment contract with the Intervenor for over 84 times from December 10, 2013 to March 29, 2014.