logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.02.15 2018구합63761
부당인사,부당징계구제재심판정취소
Text

1. On March 26, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision as to March 26, 2018.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs approximately 3,150 full-time workers and engages in the business of preventing blight and harmful insects.

On March 3, 2014, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) concluded a labor contract with the Plaintiff, and served as SC in the Chungcheong Regional Headquarters C branch (hereinafter “C branch”) as SC (hereinafter “C branch”), and on April 1, 2016, promoted to the two trop of industry and supervised and supervised the PPC.

B. D, who had worked as SC in the two strikes of industry, was embezzled by using 5,767,620 won in total in cash from the customers in charge of it from January 2016 to June 2017, not immediately deposit the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s account and using it as an individual.

D, however, after a certain period of time, deposited money equivalent to that of his embezzlement into the Plaintiff’s account.

D The amount that was not deposited into the Plaintiff’s account by June 28, 2017, which was the audit date, is KRW 405,000 in total.

C. D had a false sales registration as if it had provided services equivalent to KRW 900,000 in total on six occasions, even though it had not provided services from August 22, 2016 to June 28, 2017, even though it had not provided services to “path” as a customer.

The plaintiff is operating a system that reflects the evaluation of the relevant SC and its branch offices in the event that SC fails to provide the necessary services to the customers or is unable to receive the fees from the customers, and exceptionally, it does not reflect it in the evaluation in the event of a natural disaster.

(A) On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff added “the Plaintiff’s home country of the representative of a customer’s place of business, business suspension, remodeling, and foreigner’s place of business” to “the foregoing exceptional grounds are referred to as “the exception to the assessment of work performance.” The Plaintiff worked as SC from 2 wave to c.

arrow