해고무효확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
In fact, the defendant is an organization composed of the occupants to manage the 474 households of the Gu B apartment in Ansan-si, and the above apartment management office is a workplace that employs 15 workers at all times, and the plaintiff has worked as the head of the management office of the above apartment management office from January 2, 2004.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a labor contract with the Defendant on December 31, 2003, and from January 2, 2004 to January 1, 2005, the Plaintiff worked as the managing director of the said apartment management office. However, barring any special reason, the contract is automatically extended, and other matters are subject to the said Rules of Apartment Employment, etc., and thereafter, the contract was renewed each year on January 2, 2012 and concluded a labor contract with the term of contract from January 2, 2012 to January 1, 2013.
On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff pointed out the following: (a) the details of the Plaintiff’s report and the late-end report on November 30, 201, stating that the Plaintiff paid the annual salary for the employees of the management office in advance, contrary to the relevant statutes, such as the Labor Standards Act, which prescribes that the employee’s annual leave should be paid in the following year after confirming whether the employee’s annual leave was used by the Defendant C; and (b) when the employee of the management office’s employment contract was written, erroneously calculated the annual salary and retirement allowances at the time of the preparation of the employment contract; and (c) prepared and submitted a statement on November 30, 20
On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff approved the annual leave of absence on June 24, 2012 of B apartment 11 and the annual leave of absence on June 24, 2012. On June 23, 2013, the Plaintiff approved the annual leave of absence on June 24, 2012 of the same security guard. On June 24, 2012, the security gap was caused due to the lack of alternative human resources for the security guards on June 24, 2012.
C received such a report from the Plaintiff and demanded the Plaintiff to work on behalf of the guard room, and accepted it.