logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.02.11 2019나2012082
해고무효확인
Text

1. Each appeal filed by the plaintiff and the defendant, and all claims for damages arising from illegal acts added by the plaintiff in the trial.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the claim for wage payment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the direct employment between the Defendant and the Defendant was deemed to be a direct employment after August 5, 2002, and thus, the Plaintiff sought payment of the total wages of KRW 72,503,186 as well as the delay damages therefrom, if the Plaintiff provided labor for the period from June 9, 2003 to May 10, 2015.

B. According to the above basic facts, the Plaintiff’s direct employment against the Defendant pursuant to the former Dispatch Act was deemed to be the direct employment of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was in the Defendant’s status after August 5, 2002, and the Defendant did not provide labor upon its denial. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the wages that the Plaintiff received when the Plaintiff provided labor for the period from June 9, 2003 to May 10, 2015, which the Plaintiff sought. 2) The Defendant’s argument as to this part of the Defendant’s assertion is the duty of the first instance court to delete the Defendant’s “request for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal and subsequent measures” under the first instance judgment No. 11, No. 21, and deleted “the dismissal period” under the first instance judgment No. 12, and “the dismissal period” under the first instance judgment under the first instance judgment is “the period for claim for wages.”

Since it is the same as the entry of the "judgment on the defendant's three-party's argument", it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the calculation of the specific amount of wages are as follows: Each “ would have provided labor to the Defendant Company without the dismissal of the instant case,” respectively, of the 14th, 15th, 4, 5th, 15th, 11th, and 6th, 16th, “ would have provided labor to the Defendant Company,” and the 16th, 7, and 8th, 8th,” respectively.

arrow