logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.11.30 2016나52418
파면처분무효확인등
Text

1. Of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the part of the "decision on the claim for wages of 5." below the 15th is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

5. Determination on the claim for wages

A. When an employer’s dismissal disposition against a worker is null and void or cancelled, the employer’s employment relationship has been in force, but the employer’s failure to provide labor is attributable to the employer’s fault, and thus, an employee may claim full payment of the wages that the employee would have continued to work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2132, May 23, 1989). In a case of an unfair dismissal, wages for which an employee may claim payment is paid to an employee as remuneration for his/her work are all the amounts that the employee would have continuously and regularly paid to the employee and the payment of the wages is crossed out to the employer under the collective agreement, employment rules, salary regulations, labor contract, labor contract, etc., regardless of its name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da48229, Dec. 8, 206). b.

As seen earlier, as long as the removal disposition of this case is null and void, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff all wages that the Plaintiff would have received when the Plaintiff continued to work from the day following the removal disposition of this case until the date of reinstatement.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 33, it is recognized that the total amount of salaries received by the Plaintiff during 117,458,220, which was the year immediately preceding the disposition of removal of this case, was 117,458,220.

C. The plaintiff claiming the specific scope of the right to claim wages is about the amount of the average monthly salary, which is the basis for the defendant's compensation.

arrow