이행강제금부과및집행처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff's argument at the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act provides that when the Labor Relations Commission’s order for remedy for unfair dismissal is issued, the Defendant’s order is unlawful against the above provision of the Labor Standards Act that ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount equivalent to B’s wages for the reinstatement of the original position and B at the same time in violation of the above provision of the Labor Standards Act. In addition, the disposition that restricts fundamental rights requires the legal basis, the Defendant issued a disposition that concurrently pays the amount equivalent to B’s wages for the original position and the amount equivalent to the wages without such legal basis. This is invalid due to serious and apparent defects.
B. The Labor Standards Commission’s provision of Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act refers only to an order for remedy against dismissal under paragraph (1).
In doing so, if a worker does not want to return to the original position, the order to return to the original position may be issued by an order to pay to the worker the money or valuables equivalent to or higher than the wages which the worker would have received if he/she had provided during the period of dismissal.
‘ is'.
Even according to the language and text itself, the above provision is related to the case where a worker does not want to return from his office while applying for an unfair dismissal, and according to the statement in Gap evidence 2, the above order of remedy in this case was issued in accordance with Eul's request for payment of the amount equivalent to the original employment and wages, and it does not fall under the subject of the above provision.
Therefore, the remedy order of this case is above.