(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.10 2016가단116252

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.10 2016가단116252

임금 등

Text

1. The Defendant’s interest rate of KRW 6,885,415 and KRW 4,753,465 among the Plaintiff shall be from February 4, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From July 1, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with the Defendant and provided the Defendant with labor.

B. On July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure against the Defendant for inorganic suspension on the ground that the Defendant violated the company security regulations and the rules of employment by storing and releasing confidential data of the Defendant Company into an external storage device.

The Plaintiff’s request for review of the above disciplinary action was defective, and the Defendant changed the period from September 6, 2012 to organic suspension from office for three months on September 6, 2012, and determined the period from September 6, 2012 to December 6, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disciplinary action” in general with regard to each of the above disciplinary actions.

On December 5, 2012, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized that the instant disciplinary measure was an unfair disciplinary measure, and ordered the Defendant to cancel the instant disciplinary measure and pay the amount of wages that the Plaintiff would have been paid if he did not receive the said measure, and the above order of remedy was finalized as it is.

After the instant disciplinary action, the Plaintiff was placed in a standby order until February 12, 2013. As of February 13, 2013, the assignment to the call center counselor was changed as of February 13, 2013. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff issued an order to the North Korea branch office of the Distribution Headquarters Distribution Business Department as of May 7, 2014.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant should pay the full amount of wages he received in the absence of the instant disciplinary action in accordance with the order of remedy by the Regional Labor Relations Commission, and should have paid wages in accordance with the same criteria as before after returning to the same work. However, since the following wages have not been paid, the defendant

First, the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2015.6.26. 선고 2015구합58799 판결

-대법원 1995. 4. 7. 선고 94누1579 판결

-대전지방법원 2017.11.30 2017구합103923

-서울행정법원 2015.09.17 2014구합64957

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.04 2014고정1167