logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.20 2015가단233448
임금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,590,024 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 13, 2015 to June 20, 2018.

Reasons

1. Obligation to pay wages;

A. 1) The Defendant is a legal entity established for passenger transportation services, etc., and the Plaintiff has provided the Defendant with labor to the Defendant Company as an urban bus driver. 2) On April 9, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to transfer the Plaintiff from the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Dong-dong Bus to the seated garage route of the Incheon Seo-gu Office (hereinafter “instant transfer order”).

Accordingly, when the Plaintiff raised an objection and refused to serve on board, the Defendant suspended the Plaintiff from serving on board (hereinafter “instant suspension of serving on board”) on April 16, 2015.

3) On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy of unfair transfer and unfair suspension of work with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. On June 4, 2015, the said Labor Relations Commission revoked the transfer order and the suspension of work on board within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication with respect to the Defendant, and determined the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been paid if the Defendant had worked normally for the same period. (iv) On August 10, 2015, the Defendant revoked the suspension of work on board to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff wages that the Plaintiff would have received while working normally from April 16, 2015 to August 9, 2015, which is the period of suspension of working on board.

2. Scope of wages;

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) When an employer’s unfair dismissal disposition is invalidated or revoked, the status of the employee who is seeking to be damaged has been continued, and the employee’s failure to provide labor between them is attributable to the employer and the employee’s failure to provide labor may claim the payment of all wages that the employee may receive when he/she continues to provide labor under Article 538(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Da626, Dec. 22, 191; 81Da626, Dec. 22, 19

arrow