logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.05.24 2017구합106908
이행강제금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 토목건축공사업 등을 영위하는 회사로서, 2014. 1. 24.경 원고에 소속되어 근무하던 근로자 A(이하 ‘이 사건 근로자’라 한다)에게 2014. 2. 28.자로 근로계약을 종료한다고 통보하였다.

B. The instant employee was rendered a request for remedy against unfair dismissal to the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, but was judged to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant employee filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, but was determined to be dismissed.

The instant worker filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission, and the first instance court (Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap52395) rendered a decision revoking the decision made by the reexamination on the ground that the notice of refusal to renew the said contract was unfair, and the National Labor Relations Commission and the Plaintiff appealed against this decision, but the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Nu72056) dismissed each of the above appeals on February 15, 2017.

C. On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff issued the order of reinstatement to the instant worker as of February 27, 2017.

The National Labor Relations Commission and the Plaintiff appealed against the appellate judgment, but the Supreme Court (No. 2017Du39068) dismissed each of the above appeals on June 15, 2017. The National Labor Relations Commission revoked the first inquiry court on July 17, 2017 in accordance with the final judgment of the Supreme Court, and issued a remedy order stating that “the Plaintiff shall return the instant worker to his/her former former office within 30 days ( August 20, 2017) from the date of receiving the written decision on re-disposition, and that “the Plaintiff shall return the amount of wages that would have been paid if he/she had worked normally during the period of dismissal,” and the above remedy order was finalized on August 5, 2017.

E. The Plaintiff deemed the period of dismissal of the instant employee from March 1, 2014 to February 26, 2017, which is the day following the date of dismissal, from March 1, 2014 to the day immediately preceding the date of commencing the reinstatement. Considering the intermediate income earned by the said employee from being employed in another company during the period of dismissal, the amount equivalent to the wage of the said period shall be calculated as KRW 145,412,

arrow