beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From April 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was serving in the Republic of Korea in the Gyeongnam-gu, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant company”) and retired from office on November 25, 2013, when the labor contract relationship with the instant company was terminated on August 23, 2013. After reinstatement on November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff was reinstated.
B. On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for confirmation of the fact of the instant company’s bankruptcy, etc. on the same day. Accordingly, on February 9, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the confirmation of the substitute payment for KRW 196,00, which is the closure allowance from November 18, 2013 to November 24, 2013.
C. On November 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling that “the Defendant shall additionally confirm and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 84,00 as substitute payment,” and on December 9, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of confirmation of substitute payment of KRW 280,000, the total amount of wages from November 18, 2013 to November 24, 2013 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he was dismissed from the instant company, which is null and void as a dismissal made without justifiable grounds.
Therefore, the Plaintiff maintained its status as an employee of the instant company from August 23, 2013 to November 24, 2013 (hereinafter “instant period”). As such, the Plaintiff may receive substitute payment from the Defendant for all wages that have not been paid during that period.
However, the defendant recognized a substitute payment only for the wages of some of the periods (from November 18, 2013 to November 24, 2013). Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. The company of this case as to the facts of recognition.