부당해고구제재심판정 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
The intervenor company is a juristic person established on August 29, 1951 and engaged in construction business, etc. using approximately 850 full-time workers, and the plaintiff is a person who entered the intervenor company on December 1, 1994 and served as a strategic business officer on January 13, 2015.
On March 13, 2015, the Intervenor, including the Plaintiff, presented a resignation to the Intervenor Company on March 13, 2015 (hereinafter “the first private employee”), and submitted a resignation to the effect that the Intervenor would submit a lump sum list upon a statutory application (hereinafter “the second private employee”), and the Intervenor Company issued a personnel order stating the resignation of the above officers on the same day.
On May 12, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor’s dismissal on May 12, 2015 was unfair and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on May 14, 2015. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on July 7, 2015 on the ground that “the second employee of the Plaintiff did not constitute an expression of intention, and the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was lawfully terminated by accepting the Plaintiff’s second resignation.”
On August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground on November 12, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute, evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the entire argument of the instant decision on reexamination is legitimate, the second executive officers, including the Plaintiff, were submitted to the creditors without their intention of resignation to show the fault of the executive officers for the rehabilitation of the Intervenor, and constitutes an unsatisfy declaration of intention, and even after the intervenor issued a personnel order by 22 executives on March 30, 2015, the intervenor, including the Plaintiff, does not proceed with the retirement procedure for eight executive officers, including the Plaintiff.