Choi Jae-he (Attorneys Kim Jae-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Civil Taxi Co., Ltd. (Attorney Nam Nam-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na46105 delivered on February 20, 1990

Seoul District Court Decision 88Gahap23616 delivered on October 24, 1989

1. The part against the defendant (Plaintiff) who ordered payment in excess of KRW 1,246,023 among the judgment subject to a retrial and the part relating to the cost of lawsuit shall be revoked.

2. Revocation of the part of the original judgment against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of KRW 1,246,023 among the original judgment, and the plaintiff's claim against the revoked part is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts through the first and second instances of trial and retrial, and the remainder of the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial) shall be borne by each of the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial).

The judgment of the court that all costs of the order 1, 2, and 1 shall be borne by the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial).

The defendant shall pay 10,122,883 won to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant (the plaintiff reduced the claim in the trial before the retrial).

The judgment that the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the part of the original judgment is dismissed.

1. Determination on the grounds for retrial

On October 24, 1989, the above court rendered a claim for nullification of dismissal, etc. against the defendant (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff") and 88 branch court of the Seoul District Court, 23616, which filed against the defendant (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff") confirmed that dismissal against the plaintiff on April 23, 1988 by the defendant is null and void. The defendant paid to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 1,246,023 and KRW 440,657 per month from May 1, 198 until the defendant is permitted to be reinstated to the plaintiff as the driver belonging to the defendant.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed. On March 20, 190, the members of the court ordered the plaintiff to pay more than KRW 7,471,463 on the defendant's 89 or 46105 case. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed. On October 20, 1986, the court below decided that the plaintiff's remaining appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff's remaining appeal was dismissed. On August 14, 1987, the court below's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining defendant's 1 and the defendant's remaining defendant's remaining appeal was rejected for 19 or 46105 case, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal was rejected for 19 or 1900 won (the plaintiff's remaining appeal was rejected for 20 days after 10 days after his/her death. The defendant was detained for 10 months after his/her imprisonment without labor, and the defendant did not inform the plaintiff's remaining defendant's remaining ground for reinstatement within 3 days after his/her dismissal.

Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the defendant's request for a new trial against the above summary order (Evidence A6-4) which is the appellate court of Seoul Criminal District Court 89No5642, which is the appellate court of the above summary order (Evidence A-6-4) shall be made as evidence in finding facts within the grounds and scope of the request for new trial, shall be revoked as well as the part ordering the payment of unpaid wages of KRW 6,225,40, except for the part ordering the payment of KRW 1,246,023, which is a special subsidy during the detention period among the rulings subject to new trial, and thus, the defendant's request for a new trial against the above part requesting new trial against the non-party who violated the above summary order under Article 422(1)8, which is the Seoul Criminal Court 80, which is the appellate court of the above summary order. Therefore, if the defendant's request for a new trial against the non-party who violated the above summary order under Article 481 of the Labor Union Act was rejected by the above.

2. Determination as to the claim on the merits

In light of the fact that the plaintiff is the cause of the claim for unpaid wages among the claims in this case, the defendant's dismissal against the plaintiff is null and void, and therefore, it is argued that the plaintiff sought payment of wages not paid until December 31, 1989, the day before reinstatement from May 1, 198, 198, which is the day before the dismissal was made. Thus, even though the plaintiff intended to submit reinstatement within 10 days after the release, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff failed to submit it due to interference or refusal of the defendant company's dismissal within the 10 days after the release, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's dismissal cannot be deemed null and void within the 3rd period since it is difficult to view that the contents of the defendant's dismissal and some testimony of the witness at the court below, each of the contents of the defendant's dismissal, 14 (Report on Investigation Results), 15, 16 (Report on Investigation Results), and the part of the witness at the court below's rejection cannot be deemed null and void due to the above part of dismissal.

However, since the original judgment is unreasonable with regard to this part of the original judgment, the part ordering payment in excess of KRW 1,246,023 among the original judgment is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revoked portion is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89, and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)