beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.
The decision of the court of first instance is the same as that of the decision of the court of first instance, except for the revision as stated in the following paragraph and addition of the decision in the trial as stated in paragraph (2).
B. 1) Article 2 subparag. 9 of the judgment of the first instance court (amended by Act No. 1010, Apr. 19, 2017) of the second instance court’s “the person who was discharged from office as of April 19, 2017 while working, was dismissed as of April 19, 2017, and was reinstated after the closing of argument in the first instance trial,” and Article 4 subparag. 1 and No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance court (amended by Act No. 1 and No. 19) of the second instance court’s judgment (amended by Act No. 11 and No. 4), deleted “the judgment on the claim for nullification of the suspension of duty,” and Article 6 subparag. 3 of the judgment of the second instance court’s “the judgment on the claim for payment of wages of April 19, 2017” as “the judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for payment of wages of April 19, 2017”.
3) The part of the first instance court’s 6th and 8th and 20th and 8th and 8th and 20th and 20th, respectively, are considered as abuse. (4) The first instance court’s 9th and 2th and 9 held that “the instant suspension order is null and void” is based on the premise that the instant suspension order is null and void,” and the same part’s 3th and deleted.
5) Article 5(5) of the judgment of the first instance court (Articles 9-4 through 6) is replaced by the conclusion in the trial of the second instance under paragraph (3).
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. Article 3(3) of the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that “the judgment on the claim for nullification of the suspension from office of this case” was based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s dismissal as of April 19, 2017 and the employment relationship with the Defendant was terminated, as seen in the reasoning of the judgment, but the above Article 1
B. As seen in paragraph 1, the same shall apply.