Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 3: Entity Eligible for Remedy and Need for Remedy, etc.
4. Expiration of Contract and Need for Remedy
4.2 Extinction of Need for Legal Dispute Even During the Remedy Procedure Upon Expiration of Employment Contract
| Supreme Court Decision on December 10, 2009, Case 2008du22136 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellee: A Corporation
* Defendant, Appellant: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Intervening Defendant: B 1. Facts: (Omitted) 2. Court Judgment: a. If an employee's employment relationship ends due to the expiration of the employment contract period while they are disputing the effectiveness of a dismissal through an unfair dismissal remedy application, the employee might still need to avoid the obligation to return the wages received during the dismissal period as unjust enrichment, or there might be practical benefits in including the dismissal period in the calculation of severance pay. However, such interests can be resolved through civil litigation procedures, thus eliminating the need to maintain remedial procedures. Consequently, the need for remedy ceases to exist. b. In a Case where an employee submits a resignation after the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Commission's remedial order while disputing the effectiveness of a disciplinary action through an unfair disciplinary remedy application, the employee no longer needs to maintain the remedial procedure. Thus, the need for remedy is considered to have disappeared along with the termination of the employment relationship. Therefore, the Central Labor Commission's review judgment that partially maintained the remedy order is illegal, despite the remedial order bound to be wholly canceled and remedy applications to be dismissed.' |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2008두22136.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents