beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits
A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant withdraws the notification of the expiration of the term of the employment contract of March 10, 2020 (hereinafter "the notification of this case") and currently serves at the C Hospital operated by the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff asserts that "the notification of this case constitutes the pre-announcement of dismissal" is unlawful as there is no legal interest in the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity thereof.
B. Lawsuits for confirmation of relevant legal principles are permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the current rights and legal status, and there is interest in confirmation only where it becomes effective and appropriate means to recover the original status based on the contract or to eliminate existing risks or apprehensions with respect to the current rights and legal status arising from the act in the past.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da4011 delivered on April 11, 1995, etc.). C.
Judgment
1) The plaintiff was serving as doctor at the hospital operated by the defendant from September 1, 2016, and the defendant notified the plaintiff on March 10, 2020 that "the plaintiff notified the expiration of the term of the labor contract as of March 31, 2020 due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the annual salary renewal contract" to the plaintiff on March 10, 2020, there is no dispute between the parties. However, on March 31, 2020, the defendant withdrawn the notice of this case on March 31, 20, and the fact that the plaintiff was serving in the hospital C as of March 31, 2020, and there is no dispute between the parties and the fact that the plaintiff was serving in the hospital C as of March 31, 2020 as of the date of the closing of argument. Further, considering the following circumstances, the lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed to have been for eliminating the plaintiff's rights or legal status in addition
The defendant's prior defense on the merits is reasonable. Article 26 (1) of the Labor Standards Act is the same.