임금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance claimed the main lawsuit seeking unpaid wages, and the defendant, as a result of cancellation of a contract, filed a joint claim for a return of wages and a claim for damages, and the court of first instance dismissed both the main lawsuit and the claim for counterclaim.
It is obvious that only the plaintiff has filed an appeal.
Therefore, it is judged that only the principal claim is subject to the judgment of this court.
2. Case history
A. The Defendant established on October 28, 2003 and employed 12 full-time workers, and operated clothing wholesale and retail business, etc., and around June 25, 2010, while operating clothing sales stores in the name of “E” at C department store D, the Defendant received a resume, which included the Plaintiff’s work experience as the sales agent of the department store store store as follows, and had the Plaintiff work as the sales agent from July 2, 2010 to the Defendant’s C department store D store. At the time, the Defendant made an oral agreement with the Plaintiff at the time that the Plaintiff agreed on 300,000 won per month and 130,000 won per month as sales commission.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). Work experience records from September 2002 to December 2003, 2003, F department stores G (H), from December 2, 2003 to August 2005, F department stores I (J) work experience records from F department stores i.e., F department stores from December 2003 to August 2005
B. However, unlike the foregoing resumes, the Plaintiff did not work in F department stores G stores, and the Plaintiff’s period of service in F department stores IJ was from August 12, 2003 to the same year.
9. Until 18.18. It was only one month.
C. On September 17, 2010, the Defendant’s K sales division notified the Plaintiff that he will work only until the 30th day of the same month.
Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the above committee recognizes that the notice of "(the notice of September 17, 2010)" on December 28, 2010 is unfair.
The defendant would have restored the plaintiff to his former job and had the plaintiff work normally during the period of dismissal.