해고무효확인
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 49,354,397, and Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 49,083,871 and the above amount.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff A is a company that operates the C Freight Vehicle, the Plaintiff B is a person who operates the D Freight Vehicle, and the Defendant is a company that operates the transportation business, etc.
B. On July 29, 2016, the Defendant entered into a cargo transport contract with the Plaintiffs for a one-year contract period with the terms that the Plaintiffs would deliver the goods requested by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant decided to pay KRW 4,60,000 per month to the Plaintiffs A, and KRW 4,800,000 per month to the Plaintiff B (the oil cost, road cost, and value-added tax are paid separately).
C. According to the instant contract, Plaintiff A was engaged in transportation business from August 1, 2016 to October 11 of the same year, and Plaintiff B was engaged in transportation business from July 28, 2016 to October 11 of the same year. As the Defendant placed substitute personnel from October 12, 2016 to October 11 of the same year, the Plaintiffs failed to perform transportation business under the instant contract from the same date.
As remuneration until September 20, 2016 under the instant contract, the Defendant paid KRW 4,813,606 on September 13, 2016 to the Plaintiff and KRW 7,632,280 on October 18, 2016, respectively, and paid KRW 6,031,872 on September 13, 2016 to Plaintiff B, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 4-1 to 4-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. Although the contract of this case was concluded on the condition that the plaintiffs worked six days per week, the defendant forced the plaintiffs to work for seven days per week, and the defendant, which caused the defects of the plaintiffs to express their intent of refusal several times, reversed the contract of this case on October 11, 2016 without justifiable grounds.
Therefore, the defendant should compensate the plaintiffs for the profits they could have obtained if the contract of this case was continued due to the improper reversal of the contract of this case. The defendant should compensate the plaintiff A for the profits that they could have obtained. The defendant 53,476,120 won and the plaintiff B 60.