(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.12.20 2019구합4424

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.12.20 2019구합4424

부당해고구제신청재심판정취소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor is a corporation established on April 25, 201 and engaged in the motor vehicle transport business, etc. by being awarded a contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

B. From September 16, 2014 to September 30, 2018, the Plaintiff is a person who concluded a daily or fixed-term employment contract with the Intervenor and performed driving duties.

C. On September 30, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor’s termination of the labor relationship on the grounds of the expiration of the contract term constitutes an unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on December 6, 2018.

However, on January 29, 2019, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed an application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not entitled to renew the labor contract as an employee with a fixed period of time, and thus the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor terminated upon the expiration of the contract term.”

Gyeonggi-do, 2018, 2173. D.

On March 5, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

However, on April 30, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the above application for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any remedy interest.

(C) The main text of each of the statements in subparagraphs A through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, shall be determined by the following facts: (a) there is no dispute over the ruling on reexamination of a case; (b) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition;

2. On the grounds delineated below, the decision on the review of this case should be revoked illegally for the following reasons.

1 The plaintiff is a worker with no fixed period.

The term of the contract for which the plaintiff entered into with the intervenor is not specified shall be 535, and the term of the contract shall be calculated by adding up all the renewed term of the contract, and the plaintiff has worked for more than 2 years from the date of the first contract.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2014.05.15 2013구합29551

-서울행정법원 2018.12.06 2018구합3455

-서울행정법원 2018.01.19 2016구합83143

-서울행정법원 2015.12.03 2015구합52395

-서울행정법원 2020.11.20 2020구합58427