beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. The following facts are apparent in records of the final judgment subject to review and the judgment of the previous review case.
The plaintiff, from November 15, 2002 to February 28, 2006, worked as a taxi driver at the defendant company, submitted a resignation letter to the Seoul Southern District Court and retired from office on February 28, 2006, and then filed a claim against the defendant company for retirement allowance of KRW 903,29, bonuses of KRW 86,30, annual salary of KRW 327,990, annual salary of KRW 67,000, annual salary of KRW 67,00, annual salary of KRW 150,963, annual salary of KRW 2,535,552 (amount of KRW 2,536,082 stated in the first instance judgment as stated in the above claim) and damages for delay (the amount of KRW 2,536,083, Oct. 31, 2007) and damages for delay, with the decision of the court below that the defendant paid damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. On January 22, 2009, both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against the above judgment and on January 22, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to the judgment to pay KRW 918,033 and delay damages to the plaintiff (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Na13003, hereinafter referred to as the "Re-adjudication judgment"). On February 3, 2009, the plaintiff served a certified copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on February 3, 2009, and on February 9, 2009, the judgment subject to a retrial was not in compliance with the calculation method of retirement allowances under the Ministry of Labor and the collective agreement, and the appeal was filed on the ground that the allowances for leave are unfair, and it should be revoked due to omission or error in calculation (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da16391, May 28,
C. Although the Plaintiff filed a petition for a new trial with the Seoul Southern District Court regarding the said final judgment, the said court dismissed the said lawsuit on December 3, 2009 (2009 Jaena54). While the Plaintiff filed an appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on April 15, 2010 (2010Da2909).
2. The Plaintiff asserted grounds for retrial. The judgment subject to retrial disregards the method of calculating retirement allowances and collective agreement with the Ministry of Labor, and is also inconsistent with the Labor Standards Act, and is deducted from the payment of wages on February 2006.