(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2014.03.27 2013가합2529

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2014.03.27 2013가합2529

해고무효확인 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Company was a corporation that was newly established on July 1, 2010 by dividing the C business place of Spanco Co., Ltd., taking charge of the protection of the Company, into account the C business place of Spanco, Ltd. ( was divided from Spanco on May 1, 2005).

B. On February 18, 1991, the Plaintiff joined Maco, transferred to Maco on May 1, 2005, and on July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Defendant Company and served as the head of the management support office.

C. On August 12, 2011, the Plaintiff was working for the same year.

8.4.Preparation of a resignation and submission to the Company.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff asserted that the representative director D of the defendant company caused verbal abuse and insult, and psychological pressure to the plaintiff on the grounds that "the management evaluation results are low" and "the disturbance of private life," etc., the plaintiff spreads false facts such as "the plaintiff embezzled the corporate fund," "the plaintiff received money and valuables by participating in the recruitment of new employees," and "the plaintiff has a woman on his/her part," so that he/she could no longer continue his/her corporate life, and made the plaintiff use a written resignation through E. Since he/she prepared and submitted a written resignation by duress, the plaintiff was actually dismissed from the defendant company. The plaintiff asserts that the above dismissal was null and void in violation of Article 23 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, because it did not meet the disciplinary procedure and disciplinary grounds.2) The plaintiff demanded the person intending to join the defendant company to use the company's money and valuables for the personal use of the company's money and valuables, and the defendant's act of receiving his/her retirement benefits from the defendant company, thereby impairing his/her dignity.

참조조문

-근로기준법 제23조 제1항

유사 판례

-광주고등법원 2015.03.27 2014나1613

-광주지방법원 2018.01.18 2017가합52912

-수원지방법원 2011.4.29.선고 2010가합1671 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.17 2014나1861

-인천지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가합55853