logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.06.28 2017가합31586
해고무효확인
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s disciplinary power (1) are limited liability companies running the C hotel, and the Plaintiff is a worker who was employed by the Defendant around February 1, 1991 and worked in the said hotel washing book from March 2015.

(2) On January 2010, the Plaintiff was subject to the three-month suspension from the Defendant, due to the removal of slots for customers from the outside on January 201, and three-month suspension from the guest room liftss to the business accelerator voluntary operation on October 201, and on April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to the four-month suspension suspension from office.

B. On November 22, 2015, D, which was scheduled to retire on November 22, 2015, submitted to the said hotel personnel management book of the Plaintiff and the laund employee E on November 19, 2015. The purport was that “The Plaintiff, so far, submitted to D a laund, fry, fry, and laund, “I have no way to do so,” and that “I have, for two months or remaining, followed by family education, used anti-ends, sound, etc., and followed the Plaintiff and E by disregarding the Plaintiff.”

(2) On November 27, 2015, the head of the laundry division, who received an order from the personnel department, did not hold a meeting with D on the same day and did not take account of the fact that the strike has been formed between the employees of the laundry division, and then suspended the progress of the investigation into the Plaintiff. (c) On November 27, 2015, the laundry employee G of the laundry division, who was in charge of the investigation into the Plaintiff, was called “A laundry” from the contractual employee H on November 27, 2015, that “I am from the lab to the lab, I am, and I am.” (hereinafter “second civil petition”). (2) The laundry officer, who was in charge of other contractual workers, had experience similar to the male employees, has heard the laundry employee’s laundry and the laundry employee’s additional statement.

arrow