logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2015.03.27 2014나1613
해고무효확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3. After filing an appeal.

Reasons

1. The Defendant Company, based on the facts, was established separately by dividing the C business offices of Spanco Co., Ltd., Ltd., which is responsible for the protection of Spanco on July 1, 2010 (the registration date of incorporation of a corporation is May 4, 2010).

On February 18, 1991, the Plaintiff joined the Sco Co., Ltd. and worked at the Port on May 1, 2005, and transferred to the License Company on May 1, 2005. On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant Company, who was living at C, and worked as the head of the management support office at the Defendant Company.

On August 4, 2011, while working for the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the Defendant through E, which was the adviser of the Defendant Company, “the resignation date of August 4, 201” (hereinafter “the resignation date of this case”) on August 12, 2011, when the Plaintiff was absent from work without due diligence from the Defendant’s representative director D in relation to private life.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 6 evidence, Eul's 1, Eul's 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the dismissal of the Defendant from August 4, 201 is invalid, and that the amount equivalent to the wage amount of KRW 355,342,330 from August 5, 201 to February 4, 2015 and the amount equivalent to KRW 8,93,273 from February 5, 2015 to the Plaintiff’s reinstatement is claimed as follows.

D, the representative director of the Defendant Company, around August 4, 201, led the Plaintiff to be absent without permission due to verbal abuse and insulting speech by the Plaintiff, on the grounds that “management evaluation results are low,” and “a disturbance of private life,” etc.

In addition, D around August 8, 2011, through E, a non-permanent adviser of the defendant, and G, a head of the security group, "the plaintiff" to the employees of the defendant company.

arrow