Whether a continuous work shall be deemed to be a continuous work in the case where the dismissal was made and was made retroactively to the date of dismissal.

If the representative director of the defendant company who restored the right of dismissal by the acting representative director of the defendant company, re-appointed the plaintiff as of the date of dismissal, and paid all wages during that period, it shall be deemed that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company to treat the plaintiff as continuing work without being dismissed.

Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act

Scarz.

Jeju Tourism Corporation

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) an amount equivalent to 1,989,797 won and 25 percent per annum from October 22, 1983 to the full payment.

All of the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant’s remaining principal claim and Defendant-Counterclaim Claim (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim) through the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter the plaintiff) is the principal claim, and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff) pays to the plaintiff the amount of 2,700,000 won and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the claim and the application for correction of the cause on October 19, 1983 to the full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant. The judgment and provisional execution declaration that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant. The defendant shall pay as the counterclaim claim the amount calculated by the ratio of 2,607,565 won to the defendant, and 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy so as to make up to the full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the provisional execution is each sought.

On April 10, 1981, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company that is engaged in the business of arranging domestic and overseas travel, etc., and was employed as the head of the business until July 30 of the same year, and the next day was dismissed on October 17 of the same year from the date on which the plaintiff had been employed as the former office and had been dismissed on April 28, 1982 and had been assigned to the former office on April 28, 1982 with monthly wages of 450,000, and had been dismissed on August 5 of the same year without any advance notice.

Therefore, the case where the plaintiff is the person who received wages from the part of May 1, 1982, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay 972,580 (450,000 + 450,000 + 450,000 + 450,000 + 5/31, and less than won to the plaintiff from June 1, 1982 to August 5 of the same year, barring special circumstances. The plaintiff asserts that he should pay 450,000 won a monthly wage calculated as wages and as wages on August 1, 1982, but the plaintiff's assertion that there is no such agreement, unless there is any evidence to support that there is such agreement, the plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable) and the dismissal allowance under the Labor Standards Act.

As above, the defendant borrowed 3,60,353 won including the above 972,580 won from April 10, 1981 to October 17, 1982 to the above 20-year advance payment, and the defendant's remaining 2,607,565 won from the above 20-year advance payment to August 5, 1982 only 3,608,353 won. The plaintiff borrowed 6,215,918 won from the defendant as advance payment several times from May 1981 to July 2, 1982. The defendant alleged that the above advance payment claim for 2,607,565 won from the above 19-year advance payment was made by the defendant's 20-year advance payment to the defendant's 20-year advance payment to the above 9-year advance payment to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's evidence No. 1, 21, 325-year advance payment to the defendant 2's witness evidence No.

Furthermore, in full view of the Plaintiff’s 10th of October 12, 1981 as to the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement allowance, Gap evidence Nos. 3 without dispute, witness testimony and arguments, the performance of duties, such as the number of representative directors, was suspended, and the non-party 1 was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant. On October 17 of the same year, the representative director dismissed the number of management employees including the Plaintiff, and temporarily left the Defendant company as seen above. However, upon cancellation of the execution of the above provisional disposition on April 24, 1982, the Plaintiff’s 198th of the above provisional disposition, which was the representative director of the Defendant’s x 8th of April 28, 1982, was treated as the Defendant’s 198th of the above provisional disposition, and the Plaintiff’s 198th of the above provisional disposition was treated as the Defendant’s non-party 1’s remaining to be paid to the Plaintiff during the above period of 198th of the above provisional disposition.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from October 22, 1983 to the full payment, etc. of the plaintiff's claim as the next day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case as the plaintiff sought by the plaintiff, and as to this, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay at the rate of 1,989,797 won (the wage of 94,318 won + the amount of 450,000 won + the amount of 59,479 won) and the amount of damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from October 22, 1983 to the date of delivery of the application for correction of the plaintiff's claim of this case to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this lawsuit is justified within the above scope of recognition, and both the other claim of this lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim are dismissed, and the costs

Judges Seo Jong-woo (Presiding Judge)