부당해고구제재심판정취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company that employs not less than 3,00 full-time workers and sells telecommunications services, etc.
B. On September 21, 2015, the Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) concluded a labor contract with the Plaintiff Company stipulating the period as “from September 21, 2015 to March 20, 2016,” and concluded a labor contract stipulating that “from March 21, 2016 to September 30, 2016,” the period of which is “from March 21, 2016 to September 30, 2016.”
C. On September 3, 2016, the Intervenor, while engaging in the Plaintiff Company’s door-to-door distribution delivery service in Busan Seo-gu B around 15:00, he was suffering from injury to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant occupational injury”) by tearing 20 km away from the cargo partitions of delivery vehicle to the ground in the condition of the delivery of 20 km quantity.
On October 1, 2016, the Intervenor entered into a labor contract with the term “from October 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017,” which was under medical care due to the instant occupational injury, with the term “from October 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017”.
(hereinafter “instant third-party employment contract” and “each of the instant employment contracts” with the aforementioned employment contracts. E
Plaintiff
On March 20, 2017, the Company made a notification to the intervenors on March 20, 2017 to the effect that “the labor contract between the Plaintiff Company and the Intervenor is terminated on March 31, 2017 upon the expiration of the period of validity” (hereinafter “instant notification”).
F. On April 27, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant notification constituted unfair dismissal.
Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize the Intervenor’s legitimate right to expect renewal of an employment contract on June 16, 2017. Thus, the instant notice is justifiable.
The Intervenor rendered a decision to dismiss the Intervenor’s request for remedy.
G. On July 21, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for review seeking the revocation of the said determination with the National Labor Relations Commission.
The National Labor Relations Commission shall on September 19, 2017.