logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.12.04 2013구합10502
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. On March 11, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission joined the Central 2012 Supplementary Notes 1303 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the Vice-No290.

Reasons

The intervenor's business is established on January 26, 1984 and 125 full-time workers are employed by the Arts Council Korea (hereinafter "the instant golf course") under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and the plaintiff's application for reexamination is without merit, without further determination as to whether the registration of the instant golf course constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, from October 196 to July 15, 2012. The plaintiff is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter "Labor Relations Adjustment Act"), and the plaintiff's application for reexamination is without merit.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the operation form of the instant golf course and the working environment of the sports assistant, including the Plaintiff, etc., the Plaintiff constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act since the Plaintiff provided labor to the intervenors for the purpose of wages under the employment-subsidiary relationship.

B) On July 16, 2012, B notified the Plaintiff of the instant dismissal on July 16, 2012. B was assigned to a position on July 10, 2012, which was prior to the said dismissal, and was not entitled to notify the Plaintiff of the dismissal. Moreover, since the Intervenor did not grant the Plaintiff an opportunity to vindicate at the time of the instant dismissal, the instant dismissal is procedural defect. (C) The grounds for dismissal stated by the Intervenor in the notice of dismissal (Evidence A) are different from the facts.

2) The Plaintiff is engaged in labor under the subordinate relationship with the Intervenor and is paid for.

arrow