logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.01.17 2017가합208861
인사발령무효확인 등
Text

1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s disposition of personnel order issued on December 1, 2014 against the Plaintiff is invalid.

2. The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2005, the Plaintiff graduated from a four-year regular university, and entered the Defendant as a contractual worker at a fixed-term contract worker at around May 30, 2005, and was converted to an indefinite contract worker at around 2009, and was engaged in the duties of industrial complex management, etc., and passed the Defendant’s examination on the recruitment of full-time workers from September to October 2014 (hereinafter “instant transition employment”).

B. Accordingly, on October 30, 2014, the Defendant received a resignation letter from the Plaintiff as a contractual worker and settled the Plaintiff’s retirement pay and processed the Plaintiff’s retirement, and on November 1, 2014, issued a personnel order to hire the Plaintiff as a full-time employee of class IV and class IV and class IV and class 9 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Class I personnel order”). However, on December 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a personnel order (hereinafter “Class II personnel order”) with the content that grants the Plaintiff a salary class 1 to the Plaintiff again as of December 1, 2014.

C. Of the Defendant’s personnel regulations, the part related to the instant case is listed in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 5, 7, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 3, and 5 evidence (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The second personnel order issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is null and void for the following reasons:

Nevertheless, the Defendant paid benefits to the Plaintiff on the basis of the case where the Plaintiff was newly employed from January 2, 2015 to November 2018 based on an invalid 2 personnel appointment order, based on the case where the Plaintiff was newly employed from January 2015 to November 2018.

Therefore, the Plaintiff confirmed that the second personnel order was null and void, and sought payment of unpaid wages and damages for delay corresponding to the difference between the legitimate benefits as salary class 9 of class 4 and the benefits actually received by the Plaintiff.

① According to the Defendant’s personnel regulations, the term “new employment worker with career” as the Plaintiff.

arrow