logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나340
임금
Text

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.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation operating a tourist hotel business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a project contract worker from April 9, 2012 to August 31, 2013; from September 2, 2013 to September 1, 2014; from September 2, 2014 to September 1, 2015; and is a worker employed in the Defendant company as a regular worker from September 2, 2015 to April 20, 2016.

B. On August 13, 2013, the time when the term of the project contract expires, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a resignation letter stating that he/she would retire as of August 30, 2013 due to the expiration of the term of the contract. On September 10, 2013, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance and annual salary accrued until September 10, 2013, and paid KRW 5,194,870, and the Plaintiff received it without any particular objection.

C. On July 15, 2013, the Defendant decided to fill any vacancy caused by the expiration of the period of the Plaintiff’s project contract of employment through the open recruitment procedure, and publicly announced the public disclosure of general contract positions on July 15, 2013

(hereinafter referred to as “instant open recruitment procedure”). D.

On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the public recruitment procedure of this case, and passed the document screening and interview screening on August 26, 2013.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into a general contract with the Defendant on September 2, 2013.

E. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant amended the wage rules applicable to regular employees of the Defendant company. On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Defendant on the premise that the said revised wage rules apply to regular employees.

The Plaintiff received the benefits calculated in accordance with the revised wage rules during the regular employment period.

F. On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff retired from the Defendant Company. The Defendant paid annual allowances calculated on the basis that the Plaintiff’s continuous employment period was from September 2, 2013 to April 20, 2016, which was newly employed as a general contract worker.

G. The Plaintiff on June 28, 2016.

arrow