The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

E claiming that an appeal is not subject to prior notice of dismissal (misunderstanding of facts) is not subject to prior notice of dismissal under Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act, since the “worker in probationary employment” under Article 35 subparag. 5 of the Labor Standards Act is not subject to prior notice of dismissal under Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant has no obligation to pay the prior notice of dismissal to E.

The assertion that there is no unpaid wage, E has worked from September 21, 2017, not from September 201, but from September 25, 2017, and the Defendant has no unpaid wage to E.

Judgment

If the rules of employment provide for the application of the probationary period to a worker newly employed under the rules of employment to the assertion that he/she is not subject to advance notice of dismissal, it shall specify in the employment contract whether the probationary period is applied to the worker, and if it is not clearly stated that the probationary period is applicable, it shall be employed as a probationary employee not to the probationary worker.

It should be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da4914 delivered on November 26, 1991, Supreme Court Decision 99Da30473 delivered on November 12, 199). Based on the above legal principles, according to the health care unit as to the instant case and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be recognized that the Defendant and E did not prepare a labor contract and there was no other contract or rules of employment regarding the use of training (Evidence Nos. 10, 66, 67). Accordingly, E was employed as a regular member who is not a probationary employee.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion based on the premise that E is a worker in probationary employment is without merit.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion that there was no unpaid wage, E was present at work from September 21, 2017.

Since the person may be appointed, the defendant is subject to an investigation by the labor supervisor, and E was present at work from September 21, 2017.