logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.01.14 2015구합69157
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. On June 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered a remedy for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

Reasons

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that employs 390 full-time workers and operates urban bus transportation business, and the Plaintiff was employed by the Intervenor on April 20, 2006 and served as a bus driver.

They temporarily laid off due to an injury outside of work, and they did not comply with the order of return to work even though they did not submit a reinstatement even after the period of return to work expires.

Pursuant to Article 20 (2) and Article 23 (1) 5 of the Rules of Employment, I notify ipso facto retirement of ipso facto retirement from office as of October 31, 2014, the expiration date of the period of temporary retirement.

On November 26, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that he/she retired ipso facto from office as of October 31, 2014.

(2) On April 29, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “this case’s notification constitutes dismissal, but it cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 23(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and there is no procedural illegality recognized as a ground for dismissal and there is no procedural illegality.”

On June 29, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”), which is without dispute, written evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 9 and 10 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was injured due to a traffic accident during his/her retirement on July 22, 2014, constitutes occupational injury, and thus, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff during the period of suspension for surgery and hospital treatment.

arrow