logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울행정법원 2016.07.01 2016구합54589
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff was established on September 11, 1998 and run security business using approximately 1,00 full-time workers. The Plaintiff entered into an entrusted management contract with C Apartment in Ulsan (hereinafter “instant apartment”). From March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017, the term of the contract was from March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017.

B. Around March 25, 2015, the Intervenor entered into a labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with the term of the contract from March 25, 2015 to March 24, 2016, and worked as the head of the Management Office in the instant apartment.

C. While conflicts have occurred between the Intervenor and the Chairperson D of the instant joining subrogation due to the problems related to the fire-fighting system of the instant apartment, it is difficult for the Intervenor to prepare for the apartment to move in in the original Ulsan. It is difficult for the Intervenor to do so. It is no longer possible for the Intervenor to participate in the crime. The author sent a text message to the end of May, 201, stating that it is difficult for the Intervenor to send it to the end of May.

D Around June 21, 2015, a text message was sent to the intervenors to the effect that “the Plaintiff requested the replacement of the head of the instant apartment management office.”

E. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff’s general head of the headquarters promised to hold the part of the Intervenor and the restaurant operated by D to resolve the inconvenience relationship between the Intervenor and D, but the intervenor did not go to the place of promise.

F. On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an order to commence business in Seoul F apartment between June 23, 2015 and June 30, 2015, and issued a transfer order to dismiss an intervenor pursuant to Article 66(1)26 of the Plaintiff’s Rules of Employment (hereinafter “instant transfer order”).

G. The Plaintiff.

arrow