logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.15 2016가단5240478
임금
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 25,062,904 as well as 6% per annum from January 10, 2019 to October 15, 2019;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in the manufacture, recycling, processing, and sale, etc. of automobile tyres, tubes, and parts and accessories thereof.

B. On December 24, 1995, the Plaintiff was subject to ex officio dismissal disposition on August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) while he/she joined the Defendant and worked as a production skilled employee.

C. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant disposition of dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal, and the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy. However, on March 28, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision of reexamination on the ground that “the instant disposition of dismissal is unfair,” “the first inquiry court is revoked, the instant disposition of dismissal is recognized as unfair dismissal, and the Defendant is reinstated to the original position, and the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of dismissal is paid.”

On January 18, 2018, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on the grounds that the Defendant’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2018Nu35799) and the appeal (Supreme Court 2018Du54170) were dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

E. The Defendant reinstated the Plaintiff on December 5, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 15, 20, 24, 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a case where an employer’s unfair dismissal disposition is invalidated or cancelled, the status as an employee to be damaged has been continued, and where an employee has failed to provide labor between him/her due to a cause attributable to the employer, the employee may claim payment of the entire amount of wages that he/she is entitled to receive when he/she has continuously worked in accordance with Article 538(1) of the Civil Act. Here, wages for which the employee may claim payment of wages under Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act.

arrow