Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims for nullification of dismissal among the lawsuits in this case are dismissed.
2. The defendant,
A. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a company established on October 6, 201 and engaged in the manufacturing and painting of steel structures.
B. On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff A and B drafted a one-year employment contract between the Defendant and the contract period from November 10, 2015 to November 9, 2016, and Plaintiff C drafted a one-year employment contract between the Defendant and the contract period from November 30, 2015 to November 29, 2016.
Accordingly, from November 10, 2015, Plaintiff A and B performed the pre-treatment of ship structures and sanding work at the Defendant’s workplace from November 30, 2015.
C. On February 26, 2016, Defendant E’s representative director rejected complaints regarding the Plaintiffs’ demand for wage increase, and suspended the Plaintiffs’ work. This means that “I would like to do with good faith and work.”
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine ex officio the validity of the part concerning the claim for nullification of dismissal among the lawsuit in this case, as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for nullification of dismissal.
A lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal is recognized only in cases where it is valid and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of nullification of dismissal, which is a previous legal act, in order to restore the original status based on a labor contract or to eliminate the present risk or apprehension of other rights or legal status due to dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da20149, Jan. 15, 1993). In addition, in the case of an employee who entered into a labor contract for a specified period, the status relationship as an employee with the expiry of the term as a matter of course shall be naturally terminated and, in principle, the employee shall be retired ipso facto from office even if the employee
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du5374, Jul. 28, 2011). Therefore, the period of employment has already expired and is regarded as an employee.