logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.10.19 2017구합54623
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On May 1, 2014, an intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “B”) for a fixed period of one year (from May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015), and thereafter worked as the main assistant of the C cafeteria (hereinafter referred to as “instant cafeteria”) which is the attached facilities, and entered into a renewal contract for a fixed period of one year (from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016) on May 1, 2015.

B. On March 3, 2016, when the period of work expires, B notified the intervenors that the contract is terminated due to the termination of the period of work as of April 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant notification”).

C. On July 4, 2016, the Intervenor asserted that the instant notification constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on August 29, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy by deeming that the Intervenor did not have legitimate expectation for the conversion of an indefinite contract.

On October 7, 2016, the intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on October 7, 2016. On December 29, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission recognized the intervenor’s legitimate expectation right to the conversion of an indefinite contract into an indefinite contract without reasonable grounds, and revoked the initial inquiry court and accepted the intervenor’s request for remedy.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B stipulates that both the term of the contract is one year, and the term of the contract is terminated at the expiration of the term of the contract, and there are no particular provisions concerning the procedure or requirements for the renewal of the contract, and even according to the Ministry of National Defense’s directives or the Army regulations, there are discretion as to whether the fixed-term worker is converted into the term of the contract.

arrow