임금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the court of first instance added "(hereinafter "the dismissal of this case") to "(hereinafter "the dismissal of this case") at the last 8th of the second judgment of the court of first instance," and "(hereinafter "the settlement of this case") at the last 10th of the same case(hereinafter "the "the settlement of this case")" to "the settlement of this case," and it is the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing
A. The defendant's grounds of appeal are as follows: ① in determining whether the dismissal of this case is null and void, the dismissal of this case on the grounds of the defendant's managerial reasons is not null and void; ② Even if the dismissal of this case is null and void, the dismissal of this case is due to the closure of business due to managerial reasons; thus, there is no obligation to pay wages during the period of dismissal; ③ the service period of the plaintiff is less than one year, and thus there is no obligation to pay retirement allowances.
Judgment
1) (1) The judgment on ① Article 16-3(5) of the Labor Relations Commission Act provides that “The protocol of compromise made by the Labor Relations Commission shall have the effect of judicial compromise pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act.” As to the validity of the dismissal of this case, the conciliation of this case shall have the effect of judicial compromise pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act, and the dismissal of the Plaintiff made by the Defendant on May 30, 2017 shall be recognized as unfair, and the dismissal of the Plaintiff made by the Defendant on May 30, 2017 shall not be contested again, and if the other party fails to perform the content of the protocol of compromise, he may apply for compulsory execution to the court.” Thus, the Defendant cannot raise an objection as to the validity of the dismissal of this case on account of such other circumstances, and the Defendant’s assertion against this is without merit.