beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s decision, except for adding the following judgments to the fifth and twelve pages of the first instance court’s decision, and therefore, it is consistent with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that there is no annual allowance payable to Defendant A, since Defendant A used all annual paid leave during the working period.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 11, Article 23 of the defendant's rules of employment provides that "the annual leave shall be replaced by a national holiday except Sundays and Workers' Day, and the annual substitute day shall be determined by the annual holiday, three-day, children's day, tin-day, tin-day, tin-day, tin-day, Korean, and her New Year's Day except for the day of New Year's Day, Korean New Year's Day, and New Year's Day, New Year's Day, New Year's Day, and New Year's Day shall be determined by 12 days." Article 62 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "the employer may have workers take a leave on a specified working day in lieu of the annual paid leave days under Article 60 according to the written agreement with the workers' representative." Article 62 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "if it is intended to substitute a annual leave through the enactment and amendment of the rules of employment, the employer's involvement or interference with the entire employees' free consent, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff can replace the plaintiff's annual leave.
It is insufficient to recognize that written consent to the enactment and amendment of the rules of employment was made according to the free will of all the employees while the employer's involvement or interference was excluded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is further examined.