부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.
2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.
1. Determination on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the intervenor
A. The Defendant and Intervenor’s assertion 1) The Rules of Employment amended on October 16, 2014 (hereinafter “Rules of Employment in 2014”) (hereinafter “Rules of Employment”).
(2) As a result, the Intervenor, who was employed on November 19, 201, after the above amendment, was converted to an unfixed-term employee upon the lapse of one year of the term of the employment contract pursuant to the above provision. (2) On December 29, 2015, the Intervenor specified the term of the employment contract on December 29, 2015 (hereinafter “instant employment contract”), but it is nothing more than a formal entry.
Even if the part on which the period was entered is not in form, the part on which the period was converted into an employee without setting the period pursuant to the rules of employment in 2014 falls short of the rules of employment, and thus becomes null and void pursuant to Article 97
In addition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff paid continuous service allowances corresponding to the annual salary that the Plaintiff served as an intervenor and recognized the number of annual paid leave days, it is reasonable to deem the instant employment contract to be an employment contract without
3) Since the intervenor is an employee with no fixed period of time, the plaintiff taken measures to terminate the labor contract on November 17, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the measure of this case").
The Plaintiff constitutes dismissal. However, since the Plaintiff did not undergo a resolution of dismissal by the personnel committee that should undergo the dismissal under the rules of employment and the Labor Standards Act, and did not notify the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing, the instant measure is unlawful in the process. 4) Even if the Intervenor is a worker whose period is fixed, the Plaintiff cannot refuse to renew the labor contract unfairly without reasonable grounds, as the Intervenor has a legitimate right to expect renewal of the labor contract. (1) The Intervenor is already subject to disciplinary action on the grounds of traffic accidents and non-performance of instructions.