beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 35,700,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 28, 2018 to September 5, 2019; and (b) September 6, 2019 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Defendant is a company that aims to repair motor vehicles. 2) The Plaintiff served in the Defendant Company from March 3, 2016, and was dismissed from the Defendant on November 9, 2016.
B. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was unfairly dismissed, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On February 2, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision that accepted the Plaintiff’s application. 2) The Defendant filed an application for review of the said determination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision that dismissed the Defendant’s application for review on May 23, 2017.
C. On April 3, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission seeking the revocation of the decision made by the Central Labor Relations Commission under the Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap60406. On November 3, 2017, the said court rendered a decision to revoke the decision made by the Central Labor Relations Commission. (2) The chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission appealed as Seoul High Court 2017Nu84329, and the said court revoked the said decision and rendered a decision to dismiss the Defendant’s claim.
3) Accordingly, the Defendant appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2018Du43941, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 16, 2018, upon dismissal of the appeal, which became final and conclusive on the same day. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul’s evidence No. 1,
2. Determination
A. As seen earlier in the judgment on the cause of the claim, dismissal of the Defendant against the Plaintiff is null and void. In the event that dismissal is null and void, the Plaintiff was unable to provide labor due to the reasons attributable to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff may seek payment of the entire wages that the Plaintiff would have received in the event that he continued to work against the Defendant.
Gap evidence 6-1, 2-2.