logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.12.24 2020나76364
해고무효확인
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. As a result of the Plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment of the trial court before remanding the case after remanding the case, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded only the part against the Plaintiff regarding overtime work allowances pursuant to the judgment on recognition of unfair dismissal remedy among the judgment of the trial court before remanding the case, and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. As such, the judgment of the trial court after remanding the case is limited to the above part concerning overtime work allowances that were destroyed and remanded upon the Plaintiff’s request.

2. The reasoning for this Court is that the relevant entry in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. Party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff received KRW 669,00, a monthly maximum of 669,000 for overtime work allowances, barring special circumstances during the period of work. The Defendant, following the determination by the National Labor Relations Commission on the past disposition of the instant case, paid the Plaintiff wages from May 2015 to February 2016 (10 months) that the Plaintiff was unable to work due to the above disposition, while recognizing only KRW 275,580 per month as an overtime work allowance and paying KRW 2,75,80, a sum of KRW 3,934,200, 690 (=6,690,000 - 2,75,800) to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant had a duty to claim for payment of the instant overtime work allowance for the period exceeding the actual monthly overtime work hours, the Plaintiff could not claim for payment of the instant overtime work allowance to the Plaintiff.

B. Specific determination is based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff was subject to the previous disposition from the Defendant on April 30, 2015, and did not work from May 2015 to February 2016; and (b) was determined by the National Labor Relations Commission.

arrow