logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.06.10 2015구합77974
부당해고 및 부당노동행위 구제재심판정 취소
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 disposition;

A. From February 1984, the Plaintiff was employed in the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and served as an examiner.

During the period from July 1, 1993 to June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff served in C of the Defendant Trade Union (hereinafter “Trade Union”) except for two years from around 1997 to around 199, and was elected in C of the second trade union on July 1, 2014 and performed C.

On October 2, 2014, the Intervenor issued a personnel order to the effect that he/she was exempted from his/her position on December 31, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was employed as Grade 3 in the review position, came to the retirement age by class under Article 71 of the Personnel Regulations.

(hereinafter “Dismissal of this case”). (b)

An intervenor is a corporation established by the National Health Insurance Act and carrying out the business of reviewing and evaluating the appropriateness of medical care benefit costs using 2,200 workers.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with respect to the dismissal of the instant case with Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the said application on May 21, 2015.

On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s applications for reexamination (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 71(1) of the Intervenor’s Personnel Regulations (hereinafter the above personnel regulations are referred to as “the instant personnel regulations”).

The retirement age of Grade II or higher employees is set at 60, while the retirement age of Grade III or lower employees is set at 58. However, the classification of class II and Grade III employees is unclear, and the classification of class III employees is not clear, and the case of class III employees acting on behalf of class II employees is in essence.

arrow