차별시정재심판정 취소의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Korea Army Academy under the Plaintiff-affiliated is a higher educational institution established pursuant to the Act on the Establishment of the Korea Army Academy and with approximately 620 full-time workers to train Army officers.
B. In order to fill the gap due to childcare leave D, which was a Class 8 civilian military employee of the Class 8 library affiliated with the B Library (hereinafter “pre-employed person”), the president of the Army Academy at Army established a “public announcement of recruitment of substitute workers for childcare leave for civilian employees” (hereinafter “instant public announcement”).
C. On January 27, 2014, the Intervenor applied for the examination and passed the document screening and interview. On January 27, 2014, the Intervenor drafted a labor contract between the Plaintiff and the period from February 12, 2014 to May 12, 2015 (hereinafter “instant labor contract”). D.
During the period of employment, the Intervenor received only salaries consisting of “salary” (in accordance with the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, KRW 1,380,00, KRW 1,442,50, KRW 1,500, KRW 2015, KRW 1,442, and KRW 500) and “over-time allowances” during the period of employment. On June 3, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission applied for correction of discriminatory treatment as discriminatory treatment, compared to the full-time officer, who is the comparable worker.
E. On July 30, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, unlike the comparable workers, issued an order to pay the intervenor a letter allowance, fixed meal allowance, major holiday bonus, and performance bonus (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant benefits”) to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,317,843 equivalent to a letter allowance and a fixed meal allowance from February 12, 2014 to May 12, 2015, considering that each of the instant benefits was discriminatory treatment, and thus, the Plaintiff’s remainder of the Intervenor’s application is dismissed.