임금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,772,576 as well as 5% per annum from February 1, 2019 to April 8, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
1. Facts constituting the following facts of recognition shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized in full view of the purport of all pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1:
On January 12, 1991, the Plaintiff became a disciplinary dismissal on September 5, 2016 while serving for the Defendant (hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”).
B. The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant disciplinary dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal, and the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission cited it on December 28, 2016.
On January 26, 2017, the defendant appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed it.
C. On October 1, 2018, the Defendant, who is dissatisfied with the above review decision, filed a lawsuit against the chairperson of the Seoul Administrative Court against the chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission for the reduction of the amount of unfair salary and the cancellation of the remedy for unfair dismissal. The above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on May 17, 2018, and the Defendant appealed against this decision (Seoul High Court 2018Nu54325) but the above judgment became final and conclusive as it withdraws the appeal on October 1, 2018.
On October 12, 2018, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the remainder of the annual salary of KRW 9,798,624 out of the principal during the period of dismissal, excluding the annual salary of KRW 9,798,624, and around December 21, 2018, the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 9,798,624 as the annual salary of KRW 2018.
E. On October 15, 2018, the Plaintiff was reinstated to the Defendant.
F. On December 4, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for two months of salary reduction.
2. Determination
A. The fact that the instant disciplinary dismissal on wages for delay constitutes an unfair dismissal is confirmed as seen above, and the fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the benefits during the period of dismissal and did not pay damages for delay, such as the amount indicated in the attached calculation sheet, to the Plaintiff, is not in dispute between the parties, and thus, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff the damages for delay.