beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.05 2019나8374

임금 등

Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The reasoning for this part of the claim for wages for the period of service is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay a shutdown allowance equivalent to 70% of the wages of the above period during which the Plaintiff failed to provide labor, since the Plaintiff was unable to provide labor due to the cause attributable to the Defendant from August 1, 2015, the day following the end date of the instant employment contract notified by the Defendant, to December 31, 2015, which is the expiration date of the instant employment contract. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the commission employment contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was automatically terminated at the time of the termination of the Defendant’s consignment management contract, and the Defendant’s consignment management contract was terminated. The instant employment contract was automatically terminated as the Defendant’s employment contract was terminated at the time of the termination of the Defendant’s consignment management contract. Even if the household employment contract

(2) Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act does not apply to the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, at a regular not more than four workplaces, and thus, does not constitute unfair dismissal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with. (2) The Plaintiff asserts that the employer’s automatic termination of the instant employment contract stipulates the occurrence of a cause as a reason for the automatic dismissal or dismissal, and that the procedure would be ordinarily dismissed or disciplinary action, unless the reason for the automatic termination of the employment relationship, such as the worker’s death, retirement age, and expiration of the term of the employment contract, appears to be a reason for the automatic extinguishment of the employment relationship