logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.03.26 2018나2064963
해고무효확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is that the court of the first instance deleted “ January 6, 2017,” “Article 16 of the 7th judgment,” “ January 29, 2016,” “Article 20 of the 20th judgment,” “Article 21 of the 21 of the 21st judgment,” and “ January 6, 2017,” and “Article 420 of the 20th judgment,” and “Article 420 of the 21st judgment,” shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the 20th judgment, except for the addition of the judgment under paragraph (2) below.

2. Additional determination

A. In relation to the allowance for position, the defendant made removal from the position against the plaintiff for the same reasons as the reasons for the dismissal in this case. Even if the removal from the position becomes invalidated due to the dismissal in this case, the effect of the removal does not disappear retroactively. Thus, the defendant asserts that the scope of the wages that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff

In full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 17 as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, Article 35(1)3 of the Defendant’s Personnel Regulations provides that “an employee whose disciplinary decision is required shall be released from his position until the disciplinary decision is finalized,” and the Defendant’s Secretary-General, on January 29, 2018, notified that “on January 29, 2018, the Plaintiff’s position shall be removed from the Plaintiff’s position from January 29, 2018 to the time when the disciplinary decision is finalized.”

According to this, it can be known that the period of removal from position of the Plaintiff was until February 2, 2018 when the removal from position became final and conclusive, and that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment in this case is wages for the period after February 3, 2018, and thus, the circumstance that the Plaintiff was removal from position against the Plaintiff does not affect the calculation of the amount of wages to be paid by the Defendant.

Furthermore, even if the deadline for removal from position is not specified, the same reason is the same as that for removal from position after the dismissal of workers.

arrow