부당해고 구제재심판정 취소 청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
The Plaintiff as a party to the instant decision was established on March 21, 2006 and employs 150 full-time workers and operates a building collective housing management business, etc.. The Plaintiff is a company that enters the Plaintiff on September 1, 2014 and works as security guards in C Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
The first inquiry tribunal of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, alleging that the intervenor was unfair from the plaintiff on April 7, 2015, and that the intervenor was unfair from the plaintiff.
7.3. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy on September 1, 2015, on the ground that “the labor contract term has expired on August 31, 2015, and there is no interest in remedy.”
On September 14, 2015, the Intervenor of the Central Labor Relations Commission rejected the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on September 14, 2015, and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. On December 10, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that “The Intervenor still has relief benefits, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated by dismissal but the Plaintiff did not notify in writing the grounds and timing of the dismissal.”
(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the retrial ruling in this case should be revoked on the following grounds, as it is unlawful: (a) there is no dispute; (b) there is no evidence Nos. 1 and 2; and (c) the purport of the entire arguments and arguments by the Plaintiff as to the legitimacy of the retrial ruling in this case.
On August 31, 2015, the relief benefit extinction between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor had been terminated on August 31, 2015, when the relief procedure had been in progress. The labor contract between the Intervenor and the Intervenor stipulates the termination of the contract as the automatic ground for the termination of the contract, and there has not been only once the renewed contract. Therefore, the Intervenor did not recognize the renewed contract.