부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall include all those resulting from the intervention.
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the instant case’s trial.
On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (the Defendant for review; hereinafter “Defendant”) seeking revocation of the adjudication tribunal on unfair dismissal remedy as stated in the Daejeon District Court’s purport of the claim.
B. On January 21, 2015, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim ( Daejeon District Court 2014Guhap101308).
The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment.
C. On December 3, 2015, this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu10580).
The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment. D.
On March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that dismissed the plaintiff's appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2016Du30224).
Accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial has become final and conclusive.
The above Supreme Court ruling was served on the Plaintiff on March 25, 2016.
2. Determination on the legitimacy of a retrial suit
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff and the Intervenor filed an additional application for the judgment subject to a retrial by adding C (hereinafter “C”) to the company that the Intervenor wishes to serve; (b) C accepted it and notified the Intervenor of his/her reinstatement twice, and (c) obtained a certificate of employment from C on July 4, 2013 and obtained a loan from the bank; and (b) omitted each judgment on the fact that the Intervenor was obviously C, not the Plaintiff affiliated with the Intervenor, and thus, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “the grounds for retrial of this case”) B.
Judgment
1. The phrase “when a judgment was omitted on important matters that could affect the judgment” as the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.