(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.13 2017누71705

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) 서울고등법원 2018.04.13 2017누71705

부당해고구제재심판정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

The court's explanation of this case in this case is based on the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2.

C. Paragraph 2 of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of Paragraph 2 (7) (3-9) (3-9) was used as follows. Thus, in the instant case, the dismissal of this case cannot be justified on the ground that the grounds for dismissal of this case against the intervenor cannot be deemed as being responsible for the intervenor who is an employee to the extent that the plaintiff cannot continue to have an employment relationship with the intervenor, on the ground that the dismissal of this case is unlawful, in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence as mentioned above, and the purport of evidence No. 1-2-3, No. 2-1, No. 2-3, No. 1, and 2-1, and the following circumstances revealed as a whole.

Therefore, the decision of the retrial of this case is lawful. (A) The dismissal of this case was a ground for disciplinary action that the intervenor did not submit the reinstatement in addition to the revocation of the driver's license due to driving under the influence of alcohol, and that the intervenor's reinstatement is impossible due to the revocation of the driver's license, which eventually results from the cancellation of the intervenor's driver's license due to driving under the influence of alcohol. (B) Article 10 (1) of the collective agreement of 2015 (No. 1-22) provides that "when the driver's license of the present driver is revoked, when the driver's license of the present driver is revoked," the dismissal of this case provides that "when the driver's license of the present driver on board is revoked due to the reason that the driver on board who provided his/her service is no longer able to provide his/her service as a driver on board, so it seems reasonable

However, the intervenor is a driver working on board, but March 28, 2015.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2017.08.31 2017구합50713

-부산고등법원(창원) 2014.12.04 2013누218

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.11.01 2018가합50316

-대전고등법원 2016.09.22 2016누10525

-서울고등법원 2020.02.07 2019누51415