logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2014.02.13 2013가합315
대기발령무효확인
Text

1. The Defendant confirmed that the Gi-Wi-Wi-Wi-Wi-Wi-dae, which was issued on May 13, 2013 to the Plaintiff, was null and void after November 14, 2013.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The defendant employs 17 full-time workers in the name of "C" and is engaged in the business of conducting the safety patrol, etc. of the Highway by receiving the services of the branch offices of the Korea Highway Corporation. 2) The defendant's duty of the safety patrol of the Highway pursuant to the service contract with the Korea Highway Corporation is carried out for 24 hours a day and 24 hours a day and a year-time leave. The defendant is divided into two zones of the safety patrol area (e.g., m., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

3) On May 16, 2008, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as the Defendant and worked as the Defendant safety patrolman, and is in charge of D branch G of the Korea Highway Corporation established around October 2012. (b) The Plaintiff posted a notice to the effect that the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s club worker by using insulting expressions on the bulletin board of the “Korea Road Corporation F of the Korea Road Corporation”. The Korea Highway Corporation rejected the Defendant’s request for a survey conducted by the employees of the safety patrol company by the employees of the safety patrol company, while holding the questionnaire prepared by three employees of the said company. Accordingly, on January 24, 2013, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff spreaded false facts on cyber, insulting the Defendant, and stolen and damaged public documents.”

2. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission as of January 24, 2013, to the effect that the Defendant was unfairly dismissed. On April 5, 2013, the Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision ordering the Plaintiff to return the Plaintiff to the original position and to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of the dismissal.

arrow