1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Basic Facts

Around November 22, 2013, the defendant published a recruitment notice to recruit drivers who will take charge of delivery and supply of plastic products as a company that operates plastic products manufacturing business, etc., and the plaintiff applied for membership.

On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant and worked as a driver in charge of delivery and supply work of Gisung Corporation while driving five tons wing wing wing vehicles.

On February 27, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of cancellation of employment to the Plaintiff on the ground of “fire with the employee of the workplace,” and “refluences according to the “justifiable workplace” (hereinafter “instant notice of cancellation of employment”) or “the notice of cancellation of employment of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, the Plaintiff’s primary assertion as to the respective descriptions of Nos. 1 and 2, as well as the overall purport of pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s primary assertion as to the determination thereof are as follows. No labor contract was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with a fixed period of probation, and Article 41(1) of the Defendant’s Rules of Employment pays 80% of ordinary wages.

In light of the fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 2,00,000 per month’s salary to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant proposed a monetary agreement to the Plaintiff through employees D to provide early settlement of the Plaintiff’s unfair dismissal of the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an employment contract without a fixed period of time.

Therefore, the Defendant’s revocation of employment of this case against the Plaintiff constitutes a de facto dismissal, and it is null and void because the Defendant, without due process, dismissed the Plaintiff without justifiable cause. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of consolation money and the amount of wages that the Plaintiff could have received if the Plaintiff had worked in the Defendant until the Plaintiff was reinstated.

Judgment

In this regard, the plaintiff and the defendant did not have a labor contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant are the plaintiff.