Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 3: Entity Eligible for Remedy and Need for Remedy, etc.
1. Entity Eligible for Remedy
1.1 Exclusion of Separate Need for Remedy for Wage Equivalent Upon Expiration of the Employment Contract Period
| Supreme Court, June 28, 2012, Decision 2012du4036 | |||||
| * Plaintiff/Appellee: DaeA Transportation Co., Ltd.
* Defendant/Appellant: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission 1. Facts: (Omitted) 2. Court Judgment: If an employee applies for an unfair dismissal remedy and disputes the validity of the dismissal, but the employment relationship subsequently ends due to the expiration of the contract, the employee is still entitled to unpaid wages during the dismissal period. This can be resolved through civil litigation, such as wage claims, which negates the need for ongoing remedy procedures. Therefore, the need for further remedy is considered to have expired. The appellate court ruled that the employment relationship between the plaintiff and its employees legally ended before the reevaluation decision due to the plaintiff's closure of business. Consequently, it determined there was no need for further remedy for the employees. After reviewing the legal principles and records, the appellate court's decision was deemed justified, with no misinterpretation of the legal principles regarding the need for remedy as claimed in the appeal. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2012두4036.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents