beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was a foreigner of the Republic of Korea’s nationality, and was employed in B by the Plaintiff.
B. On March 2018, Co., Ltd. filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation with Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2018 Gohap100555, and the rehabilitation plan was approved on April 10, 2018 by the above court, and around September 11, 2018.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, appointed as a manager of B, recommended the Plaintiff to resign as part of the restructuring for the implementation of the rehabilitation plan, and the Plaintiff submitted the written resignation to the Defendant around June 15, 2018. The Defendant accepted the above written resignation and the employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or is not clearly disputed, Gap 1, 2 (including each number), Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole facts and arguments in this court】
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Plaintiff, who is a foreign worker under the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Immigration Control Act, has a duty to allow the Plaintiff to continue to work for a long time in Korea. However, since the Plaintiff’s employment visa expires due to the expiration of the Plaintiff’s employment visa period, the Plaintiff lost the Plaintiff’s opportunity to continue to work in Korea, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 49 million, including KRW 1/2 of the wages for the 22-month period.
B. Even under any provision of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Temporary Foreign Workers on the market, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have an unlimited obligation to renew an employment contract against the Plaintiff, and otherwise, the Defendant violated the obligation to protect the Plaintiff as an employer.
(b).