logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.06.08 2016구합77261
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On February 8, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) was established with the trade name “JMA Co., Ltd.” for the purpose of insurance business, etc. run pursuant to the Insurance Business Act and relevant statutes; and (b) on May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff changed the name of the Plaintiff into “MMA Co., Ltd.”; and (c) on May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff was transferred the status of the insurance contract from the Green Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NF”) under a decision on the transfer of contract under Article 14(2) of the Act on

B. On January 16, 1989, the Intervenor joined the Plaintiff Company on May 3, 2013, while serving as a member of the Green Damage Insurance, and performed D affairs at B Center Cpt.

C. On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor was dismissed as of February 29, 2016 under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, as the need for reduction was inevitable due to managerial reasons.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) D.

On February 29, 2016, an intervenor filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on April 27, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal on the ground that “this case’s dismissal cannot be deemed as an urgent managerial necessity, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having made full efforts to avoid dismissal.”

E. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission only selected and notified a person subject to voluntary retirement for the efficient management of human resources rather than for urgent administrative needs, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had made a substantial effort to avoid dismissal, such as by making efforts to rearrange human resources through conversion, education, and training.

arrow