(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.3.31.선고 2015나404 판결

2. Upon the claim added at the trial, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 24,972,640 won with 20% interest per annum from April 15, 2014 to the date of full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff B 38,894,14 won, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% interest per annum from September 15, 2014 to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff A's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs incurred after an appeal, the portion arising between the plaintiff A and the defendant shall be five parts, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff A and the defendant, respectively, while the part arising between the plaintiff B and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of dismissal against the plaintiffs on May 1, 2013 is confirmed to be null and void. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 29,50,400 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from April 15, 2014 to the date of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff B 38,894,14 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from September 15, 2014 to the date of full payment (the plaintiff added a claim for monetary payment at the trial).

2. The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 through 16, 20, 23, and 47 (including the whole number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. Status of the parties

The Defendant is a school juristic person that establishes and operates a D University and E University at Psisi-si. On March 1, 1999, the Plaintiff A was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer with D University Tourist hotel division on March 1, 2010, and was subdivided into becalking design in the tourist hotel division on March 1, 2010, and became subject to bebecing design and affiliated therewith. Plaintiff B was appointed as a full-time lecturer with D University Tourism Interpretation on April 1, 1998, and the name of the department was changed from March 1, 2006 to tourist language division. The details of the Plaintiffs’ detailed reappointment and promotion are as listed below.

【List of Reappointment and Promotion】

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Courses for the abolition of a bend design and a tourist route;

1) On September 29, 2009, the president of the D University (hereinafter referred to as the “president”) sent an application for the adjustment of the fixed number of students for the year 2010 to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (former Ministry of Education) and applied for the adjustment of the fixed number of students for the year 2010 for each recruitment unit. As a result of the adjustment of the fixed number of admission, the fixed number of students for the year 2010 was changed from among tourist hotel cooking and 80 to the international lighting division, practical Chinese cooking division, balking design, 30 each, and the fixed number of admission was reduced from 70 to 40.

2) When the president paid each registration deposit to only 9 out of 30 persons engaged in Vietnam design in 2010, and only 17 persons out of 40 persons engaged in tourism daily recruitment years in 2010, on January 18, 2010, the president announced that each of the above departments may be subject to abolition of departments from the following year pursuant to Article 8 of the Regulations on the Restructuring of School Affairs (hereinafter “Regulations on the Restructuring of School Affairs”). On February 17, 2010, the president notified the Plaintiffs of the fact that each of the above departments may be subject to closure of departments from the following year pursuant to Article 8 of the D University and the 10th 1st 6th 1st 3th 6th 3th 6th 2nd 10 of the 30th 40th 10th 16th 2nd 40 of the 40th 10th 2nd 30th 201.

3) On April 19, 2010, the D University Educational Affairs Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “School Council”) passed a resolution on the amendment of the school regulations of D University (hereinafter referred to as the “school regulations”) on April 23, 2010 to abolish the departments and drawings, tourism logs, etc. The D University Educational Affairs Committee (hereinafter referred to as “D University Educational Council”) passed a resolution on April 23, 2010. Accordingly, on May 6, 2010, the president notified the Plaintiffs that “The president will not recruit new students of each department during the year 2011, as the Balking design and tourism logs were abolished,” and then promulgated on September 13, 2010 as well as on September 13, 2010 and September 13, 2010, respectively.

1) Around April 2010, the president publicly announced the proposal for the establishment of a new department to be Baling Design subject to the closure department and faculty members of the Tourism Day. Accordingly, on April 12, 2010, the Plaintiff A announced the establishment of a new department, respectively, of the instant department. However, on May 27, 2010, the president notified the Plaintiffs after deliberation by the school affairs committee and the board of trustees, that “the determination that all of the results of deliberation on the proposal for the establishment of each department are impossible” was issued.

2) On April 28, 2011, the president publicly announced the proposal of the new department to the faculty members of the closed department. Accordingly, the Plaintiff B proposed the establishment of the medical tourism department on May 9, 201. On May 27, 2011, the president notified the Plaintiff B of the establishment of the new department due to the deliberation by the school affairs committee and the university council. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff also proposed the establishment of the training programs and the establishment of new departments around that time, and was excluded from the subject of examination on the ground that the submission deadline was not complied with.

3) On April 25, 2012, the president announced a new proposal to the department of pulmonary medicine more once again on April 25, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff A was notified that the establishment of the department of pulmonary medicine start-up with the department of pulmonary medicine start-up, and Plaintiff B was impossible to establish the department of each department by the president on June 7, 2012.

4) On April 8, 2013, the president publicly announced the proposal for the establishment of a new department to the faculty members of the relevant department, but the Plaintiffs did not submit the proposal.

(d) Application for and refusal of the change of major;

1) On May 24, 2010, the president announced the Plaintiffs on May 24, 2010 of the application for transition education. Plaintiff B filed an application for transition education on June 7, 2010, and the Plaintiff A did not file an application for transition education. The president notified the Plaintiff B of the results of the examination that the transition of major was impossible after deliberation by the Committee for Deliberation on Change of Major Education. The president notified the Plaintiff B of the fact that the transition of major was not possible.

2) On November 1, 2011, the president published an application for major transition education to the Plaintiffs again. On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff B filed an application for medical tourism daily fishing and medical tourism expert training. The president notified the Plaintiff B of the results of the review that it is impossible to change his/her major to the Plaintiff B on December 12, 201 after deliberation by the Committee for Deliberation on Specialized Education.

3) On November 21, 2012, the president published an application for transition education to the Plaintiffs more once again on November 21, 2012. Plaintiff B applied for the curriculum of medical tourism experts again on November 30, 2012. On December 6, 2012, the president notified the Plaintiff B that the transition to the major was impossible.

(e) Application for and refusal of conversion assignment;

1) On November 21, 2012, the president published an application for the transition assignment to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff filed an application for the transition assignment to D University's hotel type cooking division 1), E University appearance cooking division, and Plaintiff B filed an application for the transition assignment to D University's casino, cultural language division, E University, and tourist language division.

2) On December 27, 2012, the president requested the president of the Korea University to present his/her opinion on the transition assignment of the Plaintiffs to the respective departments above D University, and asked the president of the E University about whether it is possible to assign the similar departments to the Plaintiffs. All professors of the departments at D University opposed to the transition assignment of the Plaintiffs, and the president of the E University also responded that there is no similar department or a specific major is not consistent. On December 26, 2012, the president notified the Plaintiffs of the transition assignment on March 29, 2013 following deliberation and resolution by the Teachers’ Personnel Committee.

1) As of October 1, 2012, the Vietnamese Design Department was 0 incumbent students, respectively, as of April 1, 2013, and as of April 1, 2013.

2) On January 21, 2013, and March 29, 2013, the Korea Teachers’ Personnel Committee of D University (hereinafter “D University Teachers’ Personnel Committee”) attended the Teachers’ Personnel Committee or notified the Plaintiffs of an opportunity to state their opinions on the abolition and dismissal from office in writing, and decided to submit a written opinion to the Defendant’s board of directors after deliberation on a proposal for abolition and dismissal from office against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff submitted written opinion stating that the Plaintiff did not consent to the dismissal from office on April 22, 2013, and Plaintiff B did not consent to the dismissal from office on April 3, 2013. However, the Defendant’s board of directors resolved to dismiss the Plaintiffs from office on April 26, 2013.

3) On April 26, 2013, the Defendant’s president maintained the following: (i) Balking design to which the Plaintiff A belongs and the tourism log to which the Plaintiff B belonged; (ii) granted an opportunity for establishment of a department and transition training; (iii) examined whether it is possible to teach similar subjects within the university, and whether it is possible to transfer it to an E-university affiliated with the same legal entity, but it is impossible to transfer it, on the ground that the Defendant’s articles of incorporation (hereinafter “Articles of incorporation”), Article 46(1) of the Private School Act, Article 46(1) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation (hereinafter “Articles of incorporation”), Article 46(1) of the Educational Affairs Restructuring Regulations, and Article 4-2 of the School Regulations, “the Plaintiffs’ dismissal from office and dismissal from office as of May 1, 2013” was sealed by a personnel announcement (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The instant disposition of dismissal is unlawful and invalid in the following respect:

1) The regulations on school affairs restructuring, which is the basis of the abolition of the Baling Design and the tourist language, are intended to change the status of teachers, and were enacted without the opinion or consent of the teachers, and thus, is null and void as a disadvantageous amendment to the rules of employment in violation of the Labor Standards Act.

2) The Defendant used the previous convictions for temporary school students who are scheduled to return to school in violation of the purpose of study right or guarantee of the teacher’s status, and did not meet all the procedural requirements such as instruction and consent of the professors in charge in the process. Therefore, even if there was no registered student in the instant disposition of dismissal, the Defendant’s aforementioned method goes against the purport of Article 56(1) of the Private School Act to ensure that the status of private school teachers is high, and thus, the abolition of each of the above departments is null and void because it did not meet the practical requirements for the abolition of departments.

3) The Defendant did not make such efforts despite the possibility of avoiding dismissal of the Plaintiffs by means of change of major or reorganization of departments, and dismissed the Plaintiffs ex officio without review in accordance with objective and reasonable dismissal criteria. Thus, this is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power and is null and void.

B. Since the dismissal disposition of this case is null and void, the defendant should pay the amount of wages from the date the dismissal disposition of this case takes effect to the expiration date of the plaintiffs' appointment period.

3. Relevant provisions

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Judgment on the claim for nullification of dismissal

(a) Whether the regulations on the operation and restructuring of school affairs are defective;

The rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act refer to the provision that the employer provides for the working conditions to be applied to all workers of the business in question, including the worker’s service discipline and wages, and it does not go against its name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da30181, May 10, 1994). However, it is difficult to view that the regulations on school administration restructuring, which serve as the basis for the balking design and tourism language and abolition, fall under the rules of employment under the proviso of Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2217, Jul. 14, 2011). Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the above provisions are null and void as they were enacted without the teacher’s opinion or consent.

B. Whether the abolition of a department is lawful

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 8-3 and 4, the following facts were found: (a) more than February 23, 2012; (b) more than seven (7) temporary students were in the Balking Design Department around February 21, 2012; (c) more than October 1, 2012, but there was no registered student by taking measures, such as radio waves, etc.; (d) more than half students in the Baling Design Department did not have registered students by taking measures, including criminal records, and (e) around April 1, 2013, the fact that there was no registered student by taking measures, such as the fact that each of the statements set forth in subparagraphs 4, 8-1, and 2 were insufficient to admit that the Defendant’s prior conviction design and tourism school was forced by force, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

C. Whether it is possible to avoid the instant dismissal disposition

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 31(6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 56(1) of the Private School Act, Articles 43(2), 53(3), and 57(3) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 6(1)3 and (3) of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 62(1)1 and (3) of the Local Public Officials Act, in cases where a private school discontinues its class and department and ex officio dismissal of a teacher on the ground that he/she became a teacher due to the abolition of the class and department and the abolition of his/her office and department, it is difficult to avoid dismissal or minimize the dismissal of a teacher due to another private school of the school foundation or another department of the relevant school, etc., Article 70(3) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 62(3) of the Local Public Officials Act, and Article 70(1)1 and (3) of the Local Public Officials Act shall be determined based on the results of an examination conducted by the relevant private school’s dismissal or removal based on the aforementioned standards.

2) For Plaintiff A:

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 7-1 through 3, 11-1, 2, 25-1, 26, 27, 28-28, 45-1, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 41, and 45-2, Eul-26, 27, 327, 33, 34, and 41, it is determined that the defendant could avoid dismissal by converting and placing the plaintiff Eul to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, according to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant cannot be deemed to have been subject to the procedure for examining whether the defendant was dismissed by setting the objective criteria for dismissal at the time of the dismissal of the case. Thus, the dismissal of the case against the plaintiff Gap was illegal and invalid, and as long as the defendant asserts that the dismissal of the case is valid, the above plaintiff's interest to seek confirmation exists.

A) From March 1, 199 to March 2009, Plaintiff A served in D University Tourist Accommodation Division and had been in charge of the department from March 1, 2004 to March 1, 2006. At the time, Plaintiff A was in charge of Chinese-style meals, Korean-style food, and Japanese-style teaching staff at the time were in charge of the tourist hotel cooking division. However, in 2010, Plaintiff A was in charge of the bending design and teaching in the tourist hotel cooking division when subdivided into the bending design in the tourist hotel cooking division in March 1, 2010.

나) 원고 A은 1998. 2.경 가정학박사(조리학 전공) 학위를, 2011. 2.경 관광호텔 경영학박사(푸드 비즈니스 전공) 학위를 각 취득하였고, 영양사, 제빵기능사, 제과기능사, 소믈리에, 음료관리, 위생사, 바리스타, 바텐더 자격증 등을 보유하고 있다.

다) 원고 A은 D대학교에서 주방위생 및 공중보건, 식품위생 및 법규, 식품위생학, 빵과자실습, 제과실습, 제과제빵실습, 제과테크닉, 제빵테크닉, 빵과자공예실습, 제과제빵창작연구, 케익데코례이션 실습, 바리스타실습, 디저트실습, 푸드코디네이션 실습, 베이커리경영론 등의 과목을 강의한 경력이 있다. 이와 유사하거나 원고 A의 전공 또는 보유 자격증으로 강의가 가능한 과목으로 E대학교 외식조리학부에 2013학년도 1학기에 개설된 과목 중 비전임교원이 담당하고 있는 과목은 칵테일실습(1학년, 3시간), 식음료관리와 실습(2학년, 3시간), 고급제과제빵실습(2학년, 3시간), 기초영양학(2학년, 3시간), 식품위생(3학년, 3시간), 식음료실무(4학년, 3시간)가 개설되어 있어, 원고 A의 학력이나 경력에 비추어 위 과목을 강의할 수 있다. E대학교 외식조리학부의 전임교원 중에서도 책임교수시간을 초과하여 F이 칵테일실습, G이 식품위생, H이 기초영양학, I이 고급제과제빵실습, 고급패스트리실습 등 원고 A이 강의할 수 있는 과목들을 강의하고 있다.

D) Therefore, Plaintiff A appears to have been able to teach subjects and full-time faculty members in excess of the hours of responsible professor. Under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act and Article 51 and Article 51(1) of the Regulations on Educational Affairs of E University (Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act), Plaintiff A could have been able to meet the hours of responsible professor (the hours of responsible professor for full-time faculty members of E University are nine hours each week).

E) As of April 2013, the recruitment rate of full-time faculty members in the E University Gymology division is below 100% as follows. This rate is lower than 81.3% of the total number of faculty members in 2013 at the 4-year university, so it is not impossible to convert the Plaintiff A to the said department.

A person shall be appointed.

3) In the case of Plaintiff B:

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap's evidence 29, 31 through 38, 45-1, 2, 31 through 35, and 42, it is determined that the defendant could avoid dismissal by converting and placing plaintiff B into the E University Tourist Language Department.

However, according to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant cannot be deemed to have undergone the procedure of examining whether to dismiss the plaintiff B by setting the objective dismissal criteria at the time of the dismissal of the case. Thus, the dismissal of the plaintiff B is illegal and invalid, and as long as the defendant asserts that the dismissal of the case is valid, the above plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

A) From April 1, 1998, Plaintiff B served in D University Tourism Interpretation Division (amended by the Department name of March 1, 2006 to Tourism Language Department), and was appointed as the Director of the Department on September 1, 2008, obtained a doctor’s degree in literature (language major) and held a doctor’s degree in literature, etc.

B) Plaintiff B has a strong career in subjects, such as Korean language paintings at D University, Japanese language paintings, Japanese language practice, Japanese language practice, Japanese language practice, Japanese language practice, Japanese language practice, Japanese language ability test, Korean language ability test, Korean language class, Korean language class, aviation classization, tourist language classization, hotel practice day language practice, and comprehensive daily language practice at E University. Similar or similar subjects or subjects, which are able to be demoted with Plaintiff A’s major or qualification certificate during the first semester of 2013, the subject in charge of non-permanent teaching staff at E University Tourism department in the first semester of 2013 is the basic day (1st and 3th class hours), the first class (2nd and 3th class hours), the first class (3rd class and 3th class), the second class (3rd class and 4th class), the second class (3rd class and 4th class), and the second class (3rd class and 4th class) hours of E University, and the second class (3rd class and fourth class) hours of E University.

C) Therefore, Plaintiff B appears to have been able to teach subjects that are strong by part-time faculty members or full-time faculty members exceeding the hours of responsible faculty members, and even considering the lecture hours (six hours) of part-time faculty members, Plaintiff B would have been able to satisfy the hours of responsibility as part-time faculty members (nine hours as seen earlier).

D) As of April 2013, the rate of securing full-time faculty members in E-university Tourism Course is below 100% as follows. This rate is lower than 81.3% of the rate of securing full-time faculty members in 2013 at the 4-year university. Therefore, it is not impossible to convert Plaintiff B into and place the said department.

A person shall be appointed.

4) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) Defendant’s assertion

(1) The D University, a junior college, and E University, a four-year college, can be converted to E University, a four-year college, on the ground that the purpose of establishment is different from that of establishment, and that it has lecture experience at D University, a specialized college, is not a matter of course.

(2) Since March 1, 2013, the E-university tourism department was suspended from recruitment and the need for full-time teachers was reduced.

(3) Plaintiff A submitted false research results in the faculty evaluation in 2003 and 2004, and received the results of evaluation favorable to the appointment and promotion of teachers, and was subject to a disposition of life-sustaining from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office on July 23, 2009 due to suspicion of interference with school affairs through deceptive scheme, and Plaintiff B was subject to a disposition of life-sustaining from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office on June 15, 2009, and it was changed to salary three months after he was subject to a disposition of life-sustaining from office on June 15, 2009. Thus, even if the dismissal of the Plaintiffs was deemed to have the possibility of avoiding dismissal, the Plaintiffs were dismissed, and thus, the instant disposition of dismissal was

B) Determination

(1) As to the Defendant’s first argument, the circumstance that the Plaintiffs appears to have been able to teach each of the relevant subjects in the E University food cooking department and the Tourism Day department in consideration of the health team, major of the Plaintiffs, qualification certificate, D University Vietnam design, and lecture subjects in the Tourism Day department, etc. is as seen earlier. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs could not have been able to teach the relevant subjects in the E University’s relevant department, a four-year period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, the Defendant’s second argument is examined. According to the evidence evidence No. 36, the Defendant’s second argument: (a) around July 2013, the E University Development Planning Director reported the 2014-year plan to adjust the organization and the fixed number of students with the content of suspending the recruitment of new students of the E University Tourism Department around July 2014. However, the issue of the possibility of avoiding the instant dismissal should be determined as of April 26, 2013 where the instant dismissal disposition was issued; (b) it is difficult to view that the E University Tourism Planning Department was scheduled to suspend the recruitment of new students at the time of the instant dismissal disposition after the date of the instant dismissal disposition; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(3) Finally, we examine the third argument of the defendant. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 43 through 46, although the plaintiffs were subject to criminal punishment and disciplinary action as alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs were dismissed due to the above circumstances even if the evidence submitted by the defendants alone was conducted for the dismissal of the plaintiffs, and the defendant's dismissal disposition in this case was made against the plaintiffs due to the abolition of each department belonging to the plaintiffs. In this process, the problem is only about the possibility of the conversion placement of the plaintiffs, and the criminal punishment or disciplinary power against the plaintiffs was not indicated as the grounds for dismissal, even if the dismissal examination is conducted due to the possibility of conversion, it is possible to set the dismissal criteria in consideration of the form of appointment, performance of duties, ability to perform disciplinary action, etc. of the plaintiffs, and it is not possible that the defendant did not dismiss the plaintiffs regardless of criminal punishment or disciplinary action. Furthermore, in the case of the plaintiff B, it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiffs were dismissed on the ground that they were dismissed on the same ground as the above reasons.

5. Determination on a monetary payment claim

A. The occurrence and scope of a claim for unpaid wages

In a case where a dismissal disposition against an employee is null and void, the period of the employment contract has been in force, but the worker was unable to provide his/her labor due to a cause attributable to the employer, so the worker has continued to work under Article 538(1) of the Civil Act

In full, a claim can be filed for payment of the entire amount of wages that can be paid to friendly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da45753, 45760, Nov. 21, 1995). The dismissal disposition of this case is null and void, the expiration date of the appointment period of Plaintiff A was March 31, 2014; the expiration date of the appointment period of Plaintiff B was August 31, 2014. In full view of the entries and arguments in evidence No. 46 and evidence Nos. 48, and the overall purport of the arguments in this case, it is reasonable to determine that monthly wages which Plaintiff A finally received before the dismissal disposition of this case were 2,686,400, and 2,430,844, and monthly average wages of Plaintiff B were 300,000,0000 won x 30,000,000 won x 184,015.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument (the deduction of intermediate income)

1) According to Article 46(1) of the Labor Standards Act, when a worker suspends his/her business due to a cause attributable to the employer, the employer shall pay 70 percent or more of average wages to the worker during the period of suspension of business. Here, the period of suspension of business includes cases where the worker refuses or is unable to work against his/her will despite the existence of the employer to provide his/her labor in accordance with the labor contract. The wage that the worker was paid to another worker during the period of dismissal due to a cause attributable to the employer falls under the profit that the worker gains by discharging his/her own obligation provided for in Article 538(2) of the Civil Act, and thus, the employer can deduct the above double income when paying the wage during the period of dismissal. However, even in such a case, the interim pressure cannot be deducted from the amount within the limit of the temporary closure allowance provided for in Article 46(1) of the Labor Standards Act among the amount of wages that the worker could have been paid, and the interim income should be deducted only from the amount exceeding the temporary retirement allowance (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da464647374, Apr. 2074, 2004.

2) According to Gap evidence 50 evidence No. 50, Oct. 5, 2012, 200. According to Gap evidence No. 50, the income earned by the plaintiff A from leaving his/her university, university, racing, business operation, hotel operation, tourism management, etc. for the period from the dismissal of this case to the expiration date of his/her employment period shall be recognized as 50,000 won each month from September 5, 2013; 1,080,000 won until September 2, 2013 to December 30, 2013; 30,000 won each month; 40,000 won each month from September 1, 2013 to December 5, 2013; 205, 30,000 won each month from June 1, 2018 to March 31, 2008; 30,608,608.6, 2008.

3) Therefore, the amount equivalent to the wages that a plaintiff A is to receive from the defendant is 24,972,640 won [ = the total wage of 5,641,440 won [1,80,480 won - 2,686,400 won - 805,920 won] x 3] + Total wage of 8,585,60 won from September 2013 to December 2013 (2,146,40 won - 2,686,400 won - 540 won - 540 won - 540,000 won - 540 won - 540,000 won - 540,000 won - 540,000 won] + 400 won, 203. 7. 8, 2013; 204, 164, 2014].

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 24,972,640 won and the interest for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 15, 2014 to the date of expiration of 14 days from the expiration of the term of appointment of Plaintiff A, and from April 15, 2014 to Plaintiff B, 38,894,144 won and the interest for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 15, 2014 to the date of full payment from September 15, 2014, respectively.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim to nullify the plaintiff's dismissal should be accepted for the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal against this is dismissed. The plaintiff A's claim for additional monetary payment within the above scope of recognition is accepted for the reasons, and the remaining claims are dismissed for the reasons. The plaintiff B's claim for additional monetary payment in the court of first instance is accepted for the reasons. It is so decided as per Disposition for the same reason.