logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.06.29 2017누82231
임원취임승인취소처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of partial dismissal or addition.

Therefore, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

6. First, the term "charges" in the first slip is raised as "unfair box".

12 Myeon 7's "No. 8" shall be changed to "No. 8,47,68".

14.The following shall be added in front of the 5th parallel (excluding the ticket):

F) On April 7, 2017, W was automatically disposed of on April 7, 2017 by the temporary president of the Plaintiff Corporation, who was appointed by the Defendant, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff Corporation seeking confirmation of the status of workers (Seoul Northern District Court 2017Gahap22852), and Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the Superintendent of the Office of Education assisted by the Plaintiff Corporation).

On January 18, 2018, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of W on the grounds that the above disposition constitutes a dismissal subject to the restriction under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, but it is difficult to view that W was a reason for ipso facto retirement at the time of the above disposition, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

"At the end of 16 pages 1, the following shall be added:

The Defendant’s subjective intent was to extend the scope of application of Article 70 of the Articles of Incorporation, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the status guarantee, when authorizing the amendment of the articles of incorporation to delete Article 66(3) of the former Articles of Incorporation of the Plaintiff Corporation.

Even if the Defendant’s evidence, including the evidence No. 45, 74, and 75, is to delete Article 66(3) of the former Articles of Incorporation, it cannot be interpreted by expanding the scope of application of the former provisions regarding the guarantee of the status of general employees, which have been narrowly interpreted according to the Defendant’s subjective intent at the time of approving the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation.

The 19th 6th 6th 6th 6th "A" means “A 11 and 15.” The 20th 20th 15th 15th 15th 20th 21st 21st 7th 21st 7th 21st 21.

“Along with the following,” “Along with the Plaintiff and the Appellant.”

arrow