부당해고기각취소
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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the submission of the part of the third through 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is so accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of
2. Parts of dried water
나. 판단 앞서 든 증거들과 을가 제1 내지 3호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고가 2016. 5. 20. 10:00경 참가인 회사 상무 D과 통화하였고, 상무 D이 원고에게 월급 등 일부 근로조건을 제시한 사실, 원고가 같은 날 16:00경 참가인 회사를 찾아가 참가인 회사 기숙사에서 하룻밤을 보낸 사실은 인정된다.
However, in full view of the following circumstances, the aforementioned evidence and the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 included the entire purport of the pleadings, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor became final and conclusive on the sole basis of the aforementioned facts.
It is insufficient to recognize that a labor contract has been established or that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the decision of the retrial of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
1) The burden of proof as to whether a person is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act is a person who asserts that he/she is an employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54637, Nov. 9, 2006; 2006Da54644, Nov. 9, 2006). ① The participant company works for about three to four years before the participant company and makes a final decision of employment without having an interview with the participant company about 10 days after he/she became a member of the company due to his/her verbal dispute with the participant company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54637, 2006Da5444, Nov. 9, 2006).