logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.10.15 2014구합100282
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

On April 1, 1992, the review decision was established on April 1, 1992 and comprised of about 4,00 individual cargo transport business operators with six full-time workers at the above address, and is working as executive director on May 19, 208 by joining the position of non-profit corporation participants established under the Trucking Transport Business Act for the purpose of cooperating with government policies on individual trucking transport business, promoting the public interest of cargo transport business, establishing mutual cooperation system among trucking service providers, and promoting common welfare.

From April 9, 2010, the Plaintiff’s temporary board of directors, on April 2, 2013, referred to the Plaintiff’s temporary board of directors as “the representative executive director under the expiration of the term of office,” was rejected, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s temporary board of directors, on the same day, notified the Intervenor of the disposition of retirement for the same reason (hereinafter “instant retirement disposition”). On the same day, the Plaintiff’s dismissal as of April 3, 2013, which was rendered by the Plaintiff to the Intervenor, was unfair. The Plaintiff’s dismissal as of April 3, 2013, which was made by the Plaintiff, was deemed unfair. The Plaintiff’s reinstatement of the Intervenor to the original office within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written determination, was paid an amount equivalent to wages that the Intervenor would have received if he had worked normally during the period of dismissal, constitutes an unlawful ground for rejection of the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination as of December 1, 2013.

① At the time of the instant retirement disposition, the Intervenor did not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act, inasmuch as he/she was an employee of the Plaintiff.

(2) The intervenor.

arrow