If a dismissal disposition is null and void automatically, the employer's duty to pay wages to the worker.

If a dismissal disposition is null and void as a matter of course, the employer is obligated to pay monthly wages and bonuses as consideration to the worker after the dismissal, unless there is any specific employer's assertion that the worker had gained any benefit by exempting the worker from his/her duty of work during the period of dismissal.

Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act

August 31, 1971, 71Da1400 decided Aug. 31, 197 (Article 27-2 (7) of the Labor Standards Act), 1597, 19806 house 19B civil 284)

Plaintiff

Korea Co., Ltd.

1. The defendant shall pay 4,293,145 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Five minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 11,800,850 won to the plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (the labor contract, Eul evidence No. 1), Eul evidence No. 2 (the letter), Eul evidence No. 4 (the draft form), and Eul evidence No. 4 (the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-Water), the plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the defendant on August 13, 1983 for the period from August 25, 1983 to August 24, 1984, and entered the defendant company as a carclian on August 25, 1983 and was dismissed by the defendant company on October 26, 1983, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

As to the plaintiff's assertion that the above dismissal was made without any justifiable reason, the defendant's dismissal is justified since the defendant dismissed the plaintiff in accordance with the Carlur Service Rules and personnel regulations of the defendant company, the defendant's dismissal is justified since the carlur is subject to a fixed order upon the lapse of one month from the date of employment. Thus, it is reasonable that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff on the ground of disability in accordance with the above rules. Second, the defendant employs the plaintiff from August 25, 1983 to October 26 of the same year. As a result, the plaintiff was found to lack of ability to perform his duties, such as newspaper articles, gate, salute, salute, revision of the context, etc. as a carlur, and the plaintiff's dismissal was made without any justifiable reason. Thus, the defendant's dismissal is just, and the defendant made a prior notice of dismissal and paid the above dismissal fees to the plaintiff on October 198, 198.

First, as to the defendant's first assertion, comprehensively taking account of the testimony of the above witness Kim Jong-soo No. 2-1, 2 (each draft form), and Eul No. 3 (Rules of Service), the defendant company is aware of the fact that the defendant company has issued a fixed announcement by assessing the quality and ability with a period of one month after employing the carculer. However, as seen above, in this case where the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an employment contract with the term of the contract of August 13, 1983 from August 25, 1983 to August 24, 1984, the defendant decided to issue a fixed announcement after evaluating the plaintiff's quality and ability for the above one-month period. If the defendant did not find that there was a lack of special reasons for the above 1-month period, the defendant's assertion that the above 13-month period was retroactive to the plaintiff, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the above 13-month period was retroactive to the above plaintiff.

Secondly, as seen earlier, insofar as the defendant continued to dismiss the plaintiff within the above one-month period, the defendant cannot dismiss the plaintiff for reasons of lack of qualification, lack of ability, etc. In this case where there was a special change in circumstances after the above one-month period, as long as the defendant did not dismiss the plaintiff within the above one-month period, the defendant cannot dismiss the plaintiff for reasons of lack of qualification, lack of ability, etc. In addition, as to the plaintiff's lack of qualification and lack of ability, Eul's statement of evidence No. 4 and witness's testimony of part of the evidence No. 5 (Personnel Record) without any other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the plaintiff's testimony and testimony of the above 2-month E-Hyman from the above 1973 University to the 1975 University of Korea, and the plaintiff's testimony and testimony of the above 9-day English language instructor from the 1975 University of Korea to the 1970th 197. 97. 197. 197.

In addition, as to the defendant's third argument, the prior notice system of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act of the defendant's head of the Labor Standards Act is not recognized in the employment contract whose employment period is fixed, and it shall be applied only in the case of a reasonable dismissal under the provisions of Article 27 of the same Act. As seen earlier, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded an employment contract with a fixed period of one year and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff for justifiable reasons. Thus, the defendant's argument is groundless without need to further examine.

If so, in this case, there is no assertion that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff by taking a legitimate procedure of dismissal due to a specific reason for dismissal, and there is no proof of dismissal against the plaintiff, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff shall be deemed to be null and void as it is unreasonable.

2. As seen above, since the above dismissal disposition against the plaintiff of the defendant company is null and void as it still remains effective, the employment contract between the defendant and the plaintiff still remains effective. According to the purport of the argument, the plaintiff's employment contract between the defendant and the plaintiff can be acknowledged as being rejected by asserting the validity of the above dismissal after the dismissal of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's employment obligation under the employment contract between the defendant and the plaintiff after the above dismissal can not be performed at least by the time of the closing of argument in this case due to the recipient body of the defendant company, which is the employer. Thus, in this case where there is no specific evidence to prove that the plaintiff exempted the above employment obligation, the defendant has the obligation to pay monthly salary and bonus to the plaintiff as a consideration duty until March 6, 1984, which is obvious as the date of the closing of argument in this case after the above dismissal, as well as the obligation to pay monthly salary and bonus to the plaintiff during the above period after the expiration of the above employment contract (after the date of closing of argument in this case, the plaintiff's claim for payment of bonus and bonus after August 24.

On the other hand, it is clear that the plaintiff received monthly salary from the defendant on October 1983, there is no dispute between the parties, and considering the whole purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2 (each salary statement) from the above, the plaintiff has agreed to receive the amount equivalent to 819,000 won in monthly salary, 819,000 won in monthly salary, and 3-month salary in the above employment contract, and there is no counter-proof otherwise, the monthly salary and bonus to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff is 4,293,145 won in annual salary [819,00 + (819,00 + (819,000 +3/12)] 】4,6/31, and less than 46/12].

The plaintiff asserts that he suffered losses equivalent to 1,023,750 won of retirement allowance due to the above dismissal disposition by the defendant, but as seen earlier, the employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void as the above dismissal disposition is null and void as a matter of course. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part based on the premise that the plaintiff retired from the defendant company is groundless without any need to examine further.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff, U.S., due to the above dismissal of the defendant, suffered damages of 130,100 won for 65,100 won in total, including accommodation expenses and transportation expenses in the mother's family, and 65,000 won in total, from the time of such dismissal to October 28, 1983 for the extension of the period of stay in Korea. Thus, in this case, there is no proof of any assertion about the fact that the plaintiff's extension of the period of stay in Korea was needed due to the defendant's above dismissal, the expenses consumed by the plaintiff for the extension of the period of stay in Korea would be without proximate causal relation with the above dismissal of the defendant. Thus, the above argument of the plaintiff is without merit to further examine.

3. If so, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 4,293,145 won. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 199 of the same Act, and Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. to the provisional execution declaration.

Judges Park Young-sik (Presiding Judge)