The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) ① the term of the employment contract between the defendant and D is merely a commercial term, ② D states that there was no explanation about the above term of the employment contract from the defendant at the time of the employment contract; ③ D states that there was no other explanation about the above term of the employment contract from the defendant; ③ it was conducted without being subject to the general training or the training as the officer, ④ D received the same monthly wage while performing the same work as the regular employee. In light of the above, D cannot be said to have been a worker under probation.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant, as the representative of the “C” restaurant in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, is an employer who runs restaurant business using eight regular workers.

When an employer intends to dismiss a worker, he/she shall make a prior announcement at least 30 days, and if he/she fails to make a prior announcement at least 30 days, he/she shall pay the ordinary wages for at least 30 days.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from March 29, 2017, dismissed a worker D who is working on the job from May 30, 2017, as follows: “At around 14:30 on May 30, 2017, the Defendant would be fit to be well-grounded with the patriarch. This shall be the same as that of the patriarch. This shall not be the same. It shall be two weeks.) and did not pay three million won of the pre-paid allowance for dismissal corresponding to the amount of ordinary wages for 30 days.”

B. Article 4 of the Employment Contract between the Defendant and D (hereinafter “instant Employment Contract”) set the period of probation from D to three months from the date of employment, and the Defendant dismissed D on May 30, 2017, before the period of probation expires for three months, and thus, Article 35 subparag. 5 of the Labor Standards Act does not apply to the provision of pre-determination dismissal pursuant to Article 35 subparag. 5 of the same Act.

Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to pay the pre-announcement of dismissal allowance to D.

(c) 1 Relevant legal disposition documents, as long as they are recognized to be genuine in their formation, the court shall give counter-proof.