Plaintiff

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Maeman Park Co., Ltd.

December 18, 2014

1. On August 5, 2014, the Central Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision of review on the case of the application for remedy for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant on August 5, 2014.

2. Of the costs of the lawsuit, the part resulting from the participation is borne by the Intervenor, and 90% of the remainder is borne by the Intervenor, and 10% of the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

As stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article (the "defendant" in the written complaint seems to be a clerical error of the "National Labor Relations Commission").

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On December 30, 2013, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) agreed to conclude a labor contract between the Intervenor and the Intervenor on December 30, 2013 with the term of the contract from December 30, 2013 to January 29, 2014 that “if there is no significant defect after evaluating the performance of his/her duties for one month, the Intervenor will enter into a regular labor contract.”

B. On January 28, 2014, the Intervenor issued a prior notice of dismissal (hereinafter “instant notice”) to the Plaintiff stating that “the Plaintiff will dismiss the Plaintiff as of January 29, 2014 upon the expiration of the available period of one month” (hereinafter “instant notice”).

C. On January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. On April 30, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor’s refusal to enter into this Agreement (this Agreement) and constitutes dismissal, thereby having justifiable grounds.”

D. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 5, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same grounds as the above initial inquiry court (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The notification of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus, the judgment of this case which is different from the premise is unlawful.

1) procedural illegality

The instant notification constitutes dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, as the Intervenor refused to conclude this contract with the Plaintiff upon the expiration of the foregoing period, after concluding the contract with the Plaintiff on a one-month basis. Therefore, the Intervenor shall notify the Plaintiff of the grounds for dismissal in writing pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17(4) of the Rules of Employment, and Article 23 of the collective agreement also provides for the same purport. However, the Intervenor stated in the instant notification that “the Plaintiff is dismissed as of January 29, 2014 as the period of time expires,” but did not state the grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, the Intervenor did not notify in writing of the grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, the instant notification was procedural defect in violation of Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act.

2) Non-existence of grounds for dismissal

Although the Plaintiff had faithfully worked for a period of one month, and paid a full amount of workplace rent, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff neglected to work without any ground and caused conflicts with the workplace rent. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s dismissal ground does not exist, and thus, the instant notification is unlawful.

B. Relevant provisions

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant notice constitutes dismissal

For the purpose of this contract, the contract is a type of contract entered into for the employer to evaluate whether the employer has the ability to perform the work in the future before entering into this contract for a certain period of time (the contract entered into by the employer to terminate the contract in the future if it is deemed inappropriate for the employer to employ the worker as a full-time employee). If the employer refuses to enter into this contract at the expiration of the period of time stipulated in the contract, it constitutes a dismissal as an exercise of the right of cancellation reserved by

According to the above facts, this case's notification constitutes dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, as the intervenor refused to conclude this contract upon the expiration of the above period of time after concluding the contract with the plaintiff one month prior to the conclusion of this contract with the plaintiff.

2) Whether the notice of this case is unfair

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall notify in writing the grounds for dismissal in order to dismiss a worker (Article 17(4) of the Rules of Employment also includes the same contents as above. Article 17(2) of the Rules of Employment provides that the dismissal of a worker shall be effective in writing. Therefore, a notice of dismissal that has not notified in writing the grounds for dismissal in violation of Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act shall not be effective in accordance with Article 27(2) of the same Act.

In addition, Article 23 of the collective agreement provides that "the probationary period for new employees shall be three months (paragraph (1)), the evaluation shall be conducted according to the prescribed evaluation table during the probationary period, and the decision on the main employment shall be made according to the results of the evaluation (paragraph (2). When the results of the evaluation fall short of the employment standards, the main employment may be revoked if the main employment is not met, and the reasons for the refusal shall be notified to the relevant person (paragraph (3). (Evidence (7).)" (Article 23 of the collective agreement provides that the participant shall notify the relevant worker of the reasons for refusal to conclude

In full view of the above provisions, the intervenor must notify the plaintiff in writing of the ground for dismissal (the ground for rejection of the contract) where the period of time expires after concluding the contract with the plaintiff. However, the intervenor stated in the notice of this case that "the plaintiff is dismissed as of January 29, 2014 as the period of time expires for one month," but did not state the ground for dismissal as seen earlier (the intervenor asserted that the notice of this case is not a ground for dismissal because the contract between the plaintiff and the intervenor terminates as of January 29, 2014 as the expiration of the period of time for time for time). There is no evidence to prove that the intervenor notified the plaintiff of the ground for dismissal in writing. The notice of this case violates Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the judgment of this case is unlawful without examining whether the ground for dismissal exists to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges anti-government (Presiding Justice) Kim Yong-Uk Kim Jong-hwan