beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.05 2014노1870

근로기준법위반

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) was dismissed by a worker F, who intentionally violated the direction of the Defendant, resulting in enormous interference with the business, and thus, there was no perception that Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act was violated.

In addition, "pre-determination of dismissal" stipulated in the above Act shall apply only to lawful and effective dismissal, so even in the case of dismissal of this case where dismissal of workers F is proved to be improper dismissal, the judgment of the court below which recognized the violation of the above Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor’s employee F’s intent to punish the prosecutor’s employee is maintained, and that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have shown a significant change in the situation, the punishment of the lower judgment, which has been postponed by the sentence of a fine of KRW 300,00,0

2. Determination

A. According to the records, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is presented as to the assertion that the dismissal of this case made by the defendant as of July 8, 2009 without complying with the duty of advance notice of dismissal or the duty of payment of advance notice of dismissal was unfair and thereafter the worker F was reinstated. 2) First of all, there was no perception that the defendant violated Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act.

The defendant's own assertion that the dismissal in this case was unfair, and it cannot be deemed that it was caused by "the cause attributable to the worker who is an exception to dismissal and pre-announcement" as stipulated in Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the defendant's assertion that there was no awareness that the dismissal in this case

3 Next, we examine the argument that Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act applies only to cases of lawful and effective dismissal.

It is not the basis for determining the validity of dismissal in accordance with the pre-determination provision of dismissal under Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act.

Meanwhile, Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act is stipulated.