beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.22 2014가합34084

해고조치 무효확인 및 임금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company running businesses such as the operation of educational facilities and the entrusted management of dormitories.

B. On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant during the contract period from June 11, 2012 to June 10, 2013; from June 201, 2013 to June 10, 2013, from 22:00 to 09:00 the next day; and from annual salary of 15,692,400 (the fifth day payment per month for first half) and performed duties such as night security at B high schools from every weekly Sundays to demand.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant made an oral agreement that the Plaintiff constituted a full-time employee with no fixed contract term at the time of concluding the employment contract, and the contract term specified in the employment contract is merely a formal form. Even if not, the said employment contract was automatically renewed under the proviso to Article 2 of the Defendant’s employment rules, or it was explicitly renewed by June 17, 2013 even after the contract term expires on June 10, 2013. (2) Nevertheless, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on June 18, 2013 that “if the contract term expires, it shall be deemed that the said dismissal was made without written notice, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay wages in the proportion of KRW 1,300,000 from June 19, 2013 to the date of reinstatement.

B. On June 17, 2013, the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is only terminated by the refusal of the Plaintiff’s renewal negotiation, and the Defendant did not dismiss the Plaintiff.

3. Although there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff had worked on June 18, 2013 and did not work thereafter, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on June 17, 2013 by notifying the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff.