해고무효확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the judgment of the court of first instance is added to the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below.
It shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
All of the judgment of the first instance court refers to “G” as “H.”
A person who works in the sixth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to have worked " while on duty".
Under the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the second sentence's "not only is continued, but also remains continuously during the upper period."
In light of the fact that “A, as seen earlier, is an affiliated company within an enterprise group like the Defendant, and its physical human resources composition is not clearly distinguishable from the Defendant,” the first instance court’s second instance judgment’s “each of the offices is co-owned by each of the parties’ respective offices,” and “A, as seen earlier, is an affiliated company within an enterprise group like the Defendant.”
The 9th judgment of the first instance is remarkably deleted from the 5th judgment.
2. Determination on addition
A. As examined in the above cited part as to the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action, it may be recognized that the act of this case by the Plaintiff has obstructed the order of work and the division of work of the Defendant and its enterprise group, and damaged the Defendant’s corporate image and social evaluation, and it is reasonable to deem that this constitutes grounds for disciplinary
The Plaintiff asserts that, on the grounds that both Defendant, E, and C are companies with separate legal personality, and each company’s office is located in the same building, the area of the building is considerably wide, and used separately separate spaces, the Plaintiff’s unlawful act of this case cannot be deemed as an intra-company act, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s labor order and business atmosphere were impeded. Thus, the Plaintiff’s unlawful act of this case cannot be deemed as grounds for disciplinary action.
However, as examined in the above quoted parts, the defendant, E, and C.