2. Costs of appeal and costs of the lawsuit incurred by the conjunctive claim added in the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial

On April 30, 2002, the decision of the first instance is revoked and confirmed that the dismissal of the defendant against the plaintiff on April 30, 2002 is null and void. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,732,05 won per month from May 1, 2002 to the time the plaintiff is reinstated.

2. The conjunctive claim(the plaintiff added the conjunctive claim at the trial).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 32,784,660 won with 5% per annum from March 1, 2003 to the date of a final judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The reasons why a member should explain this case are as follows: (a) there was an urgent administrative need for the Defendant Company to dismiss the Plaintiff at the time of the dismissal of the Plaintiff; and (b) there was an urgent administrative need for the Defendant Company to dismiss the Plaintiff at the time of the dismissal of the Plaintiff; (c) it is like the reasons for the judgment of the first instance; and (d) it is the same as the reason for the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, (e) it is cited pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

Even if it is reasonable for the defendant company to dismiss the plaintiff, the defendant company employed the plaintiff on March 1, 2003 and employed the non-party 1 and the non-party 53 before two years have passed since the dismissal of the plaintiff, and did not comply with the employment effort of the dismissed worker as stipulated in Article 31-2 of the Labor Standards Act. The defendant company asserts that the defendant company is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages of 32,784,660 won equivalent to the annual salary of the plaintiff since the plaintiff lost the opportunity to re-employment in the defendant company.

First, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant Company employed Nonparty 1 and 53 on March 1, 2003.

Meanwhile, Article 31-2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that when an employer who has laid off a dismissal intends to employ a worker within two years from the date of the dismissal, he shall endeavor to preferentially employ the worker in consideration of his position before the dismissal, if the employer so wishes. This purport is not to impose an obligation to preferentially re-employment a dismissed worker in any case, but to make efforts to preferentially employ a dismissed person who is suitable for the position to be newly employed by the employer, unless it is acknowledged that the employer is a person suitable for the position to be newly employed, unless it is recognized that the dismissed person is a person suitable for the position to be newly employed, it shall not be evaluated that the employer violated the above obligation to preferentially re-employment efforts as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act.

As to this case, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 27, Eul evidence Nos. 27 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff was originally an elevator technician, but the major was changed to the administration after Nov. 1, 1994, and mainly performed the administrative service. The position immediately before dismissal was an administrative director, and there is no one person whose major was an elevator technician among the non-party Nos. 1 and 53 newly employed by the defendant company, and there is no one person whose major was an elevator technician, and there is only two persons who are in charge of accounting and accounting for the administrative office, and all of the persons who are in charge of overseas receiving and managing the contracts, and there are only one person who is only a graduate recruitment. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company's duties and duties that the defendant company had employed a new employee and entrusted to them are not suitable for the plaintiff in light of the plaintiff's major, duties, positions, career

Therefore, considering this point, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant Company’s new employment without re-employment of the Plaintiff by its reasonable business judgment was erroneous in violation of the above Labor Standards Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the trial is also dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Min Il-young (Presiding Judge) final paths

Judges, Kim Jong-soo et al. unable to sign and seal by overseas business trip