beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.
Reasons
1. As to this part of the basic facts, this court’s reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cites it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Determination
A. As to the plaintiffs' claim for nullification of dismissal, this court's reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
B. As to the Plaintiffs’ claim for the payment of wages, the status of the dismissed person as an employee is null and void, and the failure to provide labor during that period is attributable to the employer’s fault, and thus, the employee is entitled to claim full payment of the wages that may have been received by the employer during that period under the main sentence of Article 538(1) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da20034, Feb. 9, 2012). Unless the instant voluntary retirement is null and void as seen earlier, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, from November 28, 201, to December 28, 201, on the date immediately following the date of the instant voluntary retirement order against the Plaintiffs, namely, in the case of Plaintiff A and C, from December 4, 2016; and in the case of Plaintiff D, from December 11, 2016, he/she had the obligation to receive the amount equivalent to the wages that the above Plaintiffs continued to work.
As to this, the defendant asserts that, through F around March 2016, in the case of plaintiffs A and D, the plaintiff C does not intend to be reinstated in the telephone call with the employees of the defendant company at around April 2016, the defendant is only obligated to pay the wages until that time.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff A and D had no intention of reinstatement through F at the end of March 2016, and in the case of the plaintiff C, the statement in the evidence No. 8 alone is the status of the other party to the conversation.