2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a bus driver belonging to Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as Defendant Co., Ltd.) and was subject to unfair dismissal from Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), and the Defendant Co., Ltd. is obligated to pay for mental distress inflicted upon the Plaintiff in money.

B. Defendant B and the vice president of Defendant C, the president of Defendant Company, committed an act of traffic accident while working for Defendant Company, and on January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff promised not to notify the Plaintiff of the above accident experience in the event that the Plaintiff is re-employed to another transportation company. On February 20, 2014, at the time when the Plaintiff was employed for the taxing transportation company (hereinafter only referred to as the “taxing transportation”) and received education, the Plaintiff was informed of the Plaintiff’s above accident experience to the taxing transportation (hereinafter referred to as “second tort”), and thereby, the Plaintiff was at a disadvantage of refusing employment from the taxing transportation.

Therefore, as an illegal act, Defendant B and C are liable to compensate for damages suffered by each of the plaintiffs as the employers of Defendant B and C (the consolation money for lost income and mental suffering caused by the failure of re-employment).

2. Determination

A. 1) First, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant Company on October 6, 201 and served as a bus driver from that time. On April 5, 2012, the Defendant Company decided to hold a disciplinary committee against the Plaintiff and take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on April 6, 2012 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”). The Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on April 6, 2012 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

In fact, on June 7, 2012, the Plaintiff made a request for remedy against unfair dismissal to the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the said Labor Relations Commission determined that the dismissal of the instant case was unfair and paid to the Defendant Company the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been paid if the Plaintiff had worked during the period of dismissal.