부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons why the court cites the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the entry of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
[The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff during the appeal are not significantly different from those alleged in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence presented were presented, the first instance court’s determination is justifiable. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the term of the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor has expired on December 31, 2013 through a preparatory document dated December 17, 2015. However, the Plaintiff did not at all assert the procedure of the first instance court’s review by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the review by the National Labor Relations Commission, and the first instance court’s trial, and did not consider that the term of the contract was expired, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the Plaintiff’s reason for resignation at the first time in the Intervenor’s report on the loss of insured status. The Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the Plaintiff’s resignation at the expiration of the contract period as the result of the Plaintiff’s recommendation for resignation from the Plaintiff’s employee, and it was difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff did not report the expiration of the contract period to the Plaintiff’s employee to the same effect as the Plaintiff’s resignation.