부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. Pursuant to Article 43(3) of the Housing Act, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a council of occupants’ representatives consisting of representatives from each Dong-gu Ysan-gu B apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”). On March 1, 2009, the Plaintiff is a person employed by the Intervenor as management officer to manage the instant apartment on March 1, 200
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant workplace”) b. the said workplace working for the Plaintiff.
On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Intervenor dismissed him/her without good cause. However, on April 22, 2013, the former Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor could not be deemed to have voluntarily retired and dismissed the Plaintiff.
C. On May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on July 9, 2013 on the ground that the instant workplace is a workplace with less than five regular employees, and the Labor Standards Act is not applicable.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision for reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a workplace with at least five regular employees, and the Labor Standards Act shall apply thereto.
In addition, on January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff expressed that the representative C of the Intervenor expressed that he would act in a biased manner against the employees, but did not have intention to do so. Rather, the Intervenor forced the Plaintiff to submit a written resignation. As such, the Intervenor’s above act was dismissed without justifiable grounds.
Therefore, the judgment of the retrial of this case is unlawful on a different premise.
(b)as shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations;
C. On February 2009, the intervenor in one of the facts of recognition.