logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.07 2015누35125
부당해고등부당노동행위구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

[Supplementary judgment] The Plaintiff asserts that “Although there was a right to expect the conclusion of a commission contract after his retirement age, the Plaintiff treated the instant retirement without complying with the procedure of review of re-employment solely on the ground that the Plaintiff joined the Korea Public Transport Service Workers’ Union, so the instant judgment on unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices was unlawful. In full view of various circumstances recognized by the evidence adopted by the first instance court as seen earlier, the pertinent provisions under the rules of employment or collective agreement do not necessarily correspond to the rules of authority or discretion that the Intervenor may re-employment within a certain scope when deemed necessary even in the case of an employee who has retired ipso facto after her retirement age. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff has the right to demand the conclusion of a commission contract on the part of the Intervenor. In addition, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation right has been formed between the Intervenor and the Intervenor solely on the grounds and materials submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no justification for the Intervenor’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s decision that did not re-employment with respect to the Plaintiff.”

2. In conclusion, the part seeking the revocation of the adjudication on the suspension from office in the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim shall be dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.

arrow