beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.23 2016나61747

임금 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, 17, 19, 25, 28, and 32 may be admitted by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

The defendant is an enterprise that employs 50 full-time workers and mainly engages in the work of treating the surface of the machinery and equipment for repair. On July 1, 2004, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in the second factory located in Ansan-si, and was discharged from office on August 31, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 13504, Aug. 31, 2015>

B. The Defendant’s primary dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on July 18, 2013, following the process of each disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff, etc. (1) The Defendant complied with the Plaintiff’s order to take a business trip order from July 8, 2013 to July 12, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant primary dismissal disposition”).

(2) On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) under disciplinary action (from November 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on September 9, 2013, and the Defendant reinstated the Plaintiff on September 23, 2013, and paid the Plaintiff unpaid wages during the period of dismissal; 2) on October 30, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for remedy against the Plaintiff on the same ground as the instant primary dismissal disposition (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action for March 1 to January 31, 2014”), and the Plaintiff appealed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and rejected the Plaintiff’s application for remedy to the Plaintiff’s Central Labor Relations Commission on March 25, 2015.