해고무효확인등
2012Da14036 Invalidity of Dismissal, etc.
A person shall be appointed.
B Savings Bank, Inc.
Busan High Court Decision 2010Na95 decided January 4, 2012
June 13, 2013
The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for nullification of dismissal shall be reversed, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.
The remaining appeals are dismissed.
The total costs of the lawsuit shall be ten minutes, and the defendant shall bear the remainder, respectively.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, in a case where the dismissal of workers is sought for confirmation of nullity and the claim for wages during the period during which workers could have provided labor, it is obvious that the lawsuit for confirmation of nullity of dismissal is aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the defendant and the defendant. Thus, it is impossible to recover the status as an employee if the retirement age, which is the inevitable ground for dismissal, has already been attained under the personnel regulations of the defendant at the time of the closure of the arguments at the fact-finding court, there is no interest in confirmation, and even if the retirement age has already passed after the closure of arguments at the fact-finding court, it is impossible to recover the status as an employee even if the dismissal is confirmed even if the retirement age under the personnel regulations has already been completed after the closure of arguments at the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision
According to the records, since it is apparent that the retirement age has arrived around January 31, 2012, which was after the closure of the fact-finding proceedings in this case, it is impossible for the plaintiff to recover his status as an employee, the plaintiff's claim for nullification of dismissal does not have any interest in confirmation.
On the other hand, according to the relevant statutes and the records, the disciplinary dismissal disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be a disciplinary dismissal under this Act or the finance-related Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, on the premise that the disciplinary dismissal disposition of this case was imposed under the Mutual Savings Banks Act or the finance-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is an interest in the confirmation of invalidity of the disciplinary dismissal disposition of this case in order to eliminate risks and apprehensions about the legal status, such as restrictions on the opportunity for re-employment under the Acts and subordinate statutes that may arise from the disciplinary dismissal disposition of this case, cannot be accepted. Furthermore, if the grounds for the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disciplinary dismissal disposition of this case, which is merely a previous legal act, are simply for restoring damage to the social reputation, it cannot be deemed to be for eliminating risks and apprehensions about existing rights and legal status, and therefore there is no interest in seeking the confirmation of invalidity (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da4011, Apr. 1
Ultimately, the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal is unlawful as there is no interest in legal action. In this regard, the above part of the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the disposition of disciplinary dismissal in this case was unfair, and thus null and void, and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the amount equivalent to the wages that the plaintiff would have received from the defendant if he continued to work as the defendant
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is sufficient to be directly tried by this court, and thus, it is revoked pursuant to Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yang Chang-soo
Justices Park Byung-hee
Justices Ko Young-han
Justices Kim Jae-tae