1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.:

A. From June 23, 2016 to January 12, 2017, KRW 21,771,784 and those related thereto.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff and the defendant company related to the plaintiff and the defendants are companies established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling railroad supplies, and the defendant C is the chairperson of the defendant company.

On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant Company and worked as the office staff of the Defendant Company.

The Defendant Company dismissed the Plaintiff on August 3, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal.” On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) as to the instant dismissal on September 2, 2015.

On October 26, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the dismissal of this case as unfair and issued an order for remedy to the defendant company.

On December 22, 2015, the Defendant Company filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) No. 2015, 2015.

On February 22, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the application for reexamination of the Defendant Company on the ground that “The dismissal of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal due to procedural defects because the Defendant Company was under dismissal without giving written notice of the grounds for dismissal and the time of dismissal to the Plaintiff.”

On April 1, 2016, Defendant Company filed a suit against the Chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap58734) to revoke the said decision of reexamination.

피고 회사는 위 사건에서 “원고는 입사 후에 제대로 일을 한 적이 없고, 평소 복장이 매우 불량하여 외국 바이어가 오는 날에도 핫팬츠를 입고 회의에 참석하는 등 근무 태도가 불량하였으며, 피고 회사의 회장인 80세 C에게 욕설을 하였다. 따라서 피고 회사가 원고에게 한 이 사건 해고에 절차상 하자가 있다는 위 재심판정은 부당하다.”라고 주장하였다.

On September 1, 2016, the above court has procedural legitimacy as dismissal in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.