2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Where evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 25 are integrated into the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged:

A. The plaintiff was subject to an accident that was being cleaned on June 20, 2005 (hereinafter "the accident of this case") while moving to the building cleaning source belonging to 000000 corporation (hereinafter "non-party company") and was under cleaning on June 20, 2005

In relation to the 'Yeaeum base', the luxum base, the right upper part, and the luxum base', the Defendant received medical care leave from the Defendant, and claimed temporary layoff benefits against the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the average wage of the Plaintiff as KRW 49,950 on the basis of the total wage paid during the period from June 1, 2005, which was the time when the Plaintiff was newly employed as a temporary contract post after the Plaintiff retired from the non-party company, and paid temporary layoff benefits.

C. The plaintiff, on or before June 1, 2005, submitted an application for the correction of average wages to the defendant to the effect that the average wage is changed by including wages and bonuses received from the non-party company before the date of the occurrence of a disaster. Accordingly, the defendant applied for a desired retirement on May 31, 2005, and received retirement allowances and consolation benefits upon retirement as of June 1, 2005, and it is apparent that he was reappointed as a temporary contract by entering into a new employment contract on June 1, 2005. Thus, it is reasonable to calculate the total amount of wages paid during the period from June 19, 2005 to June 19, 2005, which is the day before the date of a new accident.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's retirement from May 31, 2005 is merely a mere fact that the non-party company unilaterally demanded a letter of request for retirement from the non-party company to unilaterally request the employment relationship, and the plaintiff's average wage shall be calculated based on the amount of wages that the plaintiff received from the non-party company during the period from March 20, 2005 to June 19, 2005, which corresponds to three months retroactively from the date of the accident, and even if not, the defendant does not include a regular bonus that the plaintiff received while calculating the amount of wages from June 1, 2005 to June 19, 2005, and the plaintiff's average wage is calculated based on the amount of wages that the plaintiff received from the non-party company, and the defendant's request for correction of the above average wage is unlawful despite the fact that the above amount was determined by the defendant's average wage.

(b) Facts of recognition;

If Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 8 combines the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged:

(1) On September 20, 1985, the Plaintiff was employed as a regular member of the non-party company and served until May 31, 2005 as members of the non-party company's employees apartment house in the non-party company, the non-party company's member apartment house, the non-party member of the non-party company, and the cleaning of the main building.

(2) Around March 2005, the non-party company was implementing restructuring on the grounds of business deterioration in 2005, and the non-party company was implementing a desired retirement on the condition of paying retirement consolation money and guaranteeing 80% of the current wage level for two years at the time of the partner company's transfer to another company after retirement.

(3) In the process of such restructuring, the non-party company notified the non-party company as of May 16, 2005 that the non-party company will dismiss the non-party company as of June 20, 2005 (as of June 1, 2005, payment of wages up to the above day and an advance notice of dismissal for 60 days shall be made pursuant to the collective agreement, and as of June 1, 2005) if the non-party company fails to comply with the desired retirement when requesting the plaintiff to release the application for desired retirement from several times on several occasions. Accordingly, the plaintiff demanded that the non-party company continue to perform the duty of cleaning the membership of the non-party company for up to 20 years or the end of this year, but the non-party company rejected all of the above essential districts of the plaintiff.

(4) Around May 31, 2005, the Plaintiff submitted an application for desired retirement to the non-party company on the premise that employment will be succeeded to by the cooperative company (which was scheduled to commence around July 1, 2005). On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the non-party company from June 1, 2005 to June 30 of the same month (the day before the partner joined the cooperative company) to reduce the amount of wages by 20%.

(5) Even after the conclusion of a new employment contract, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of light base salt, urine base, urine base, right surface ground, urine base, etc. on June 20, 2005 by being engaged in the same cleaning business as before, and having been approved by the Defendant on July 25, 2005. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18953, Jul. 25, 2005>

(6) After the plaintiff asserted that the defendant was dismissed on March 31, 2005, the plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gangseo-gu District Labor Relations Commission, but the Gangwon District Labor Relations Commission decided to dismiss the application on July 20, 2006 on the ground that the exclusion period of the application for dismissal was expired. The plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on January 18, 2007, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the ground that the plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on January 18, 2007, and the National Labor Relations Commission filed an administrative action against the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission to revoke the plaintiff's application, but this court dismissed the plaintiff's application on July 27, 2007, while the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Seoul High Court and the Taewon District Labor Relations Commission, but all of its appeals were dismissed.

C. Determination

According to the above facts, the plaintiff submitted an application for desired retirement on May 31, 2005 and entered into a labor contract between the non-party company and the non-party company on the same day from June 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005, and had been involved in the same cleaning as the previous one, and the accident occurred on June 20, 2005. Thus, if the existing company was re-employed as the same company immediately after the retirement and the accident occurred within three months after the reemployment, the average wage calculation should be substantially determined based on the actual condition of the worker's work. It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's average wage calculation standard would vary from 0.5 months before the accident, based on the plaintiff's previous application for desired retirement to the non-party company and the non-party company's previous employment contract to the non-party company for 0 months after the conclusion of the labor contract, which is the same as that of the plaintiff's previous employment contract to the non-party 1.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case is inappropriate and the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is accepted due to its reasons.