부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. On November 6, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair remedy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor Company”) is a corporation established on May 1, 2012 and ordinarily employs 50 workers and engages in mobile application production and service business, online advertising business, etc.
On November 2, 2016, while serving as an intervenor company on November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal notice from the intervenor company on February 10, 2017 (Evidence B (hereinafter “instant notice of dismissal”) and terminated the employment relationship on March 10, 2017.
(hereinafter “this case’s termination of employment”). B
The Plaintiff asserted that the termination of the instant labor relationship constitutes unfair dismissal, and filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 7, 2017.
On July 28, 2017, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the termination of the instant labor relationship is by an agreement between the parties, and thus does not constitute dismissal.”
C. On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination to the same effect as on November 6, 2017.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on review”) / [the grounds for recognition] / The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 by the parties concerned was received a notice of the instant dismissal from the Intervenor Company, and was unilaterally dismissed on March 10, 2017 upon receipt of the verbal notice of dismissal.
On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff only sees that there is little consensus that the Intervenor company would not have a result of a settlement evaluation, and on this ground, there was no agreement to terminate the employment contract, and continued to serve on the Intervenor even after the termination of the settlement period.
The notice of dismissal issued by the Intervenor Company to the Plaintiff does not state that “the date of dismissal is March 10, 2017.”