[2] The method of notification of holding a disciplinary committee where the rules of employment stipulate that a person subject to disciplinary dismissal should be given an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and defend himself/herself

1. As to the basis of dismissal

In principle, since an employer has the authority to prepare and revise the rules of employment as a matter of principle, an employer may prepare and revise the rules of employment according to his/her own intent, and in principle, unless the rules of employment are modified disadvantageously to workers than the previous ones, the validity of the rules of employment cannot be denied on the ground that it modified the rules of employment without consent of the labor union organized by a majority of workers at the workplace or the majority of workers at the workplace (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du6647 delivered on June 2

The court below's determination of the rules of employment dated August 13, 2003 by the defendant company as the ground provision for dismissal against the plaintiff is just and correct, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding the procedure of dismissal

In making a request for disciplinary dismissal in the rules of employment, etc., if the disciplinary committee provides that a person subject to disciplinary action shall be given an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and defend himself/herself, the notice of holding the disciplinary committee shall be given in time to the extent that he/she can prepare a vindication and explanatory materials, as pointed out (Supreme Court Decision 91Da13731 delivered on July 23, 191).

However, according to the judgment of the court below and the records, the defendant company notified the plaintiff on April 1, 2004 of the grounds for the disciplinary action and the date and time of the holding of the disciplinary committee (the same month 8. 15:00) and the place to the plaintiff, and notified the plaintiff of his attendance. However, the plaintiff requested postponement of the disciplinary committee as it is necessary to review materials two days prior to the scheduled date of holding the disciplinary committee, and the defendant company requested postponement of the disciplinary committee. The defendant company notified the plaintiff of the extension of the disciplinary committee on the 14. 15:00 of the same month, and notified the plaintiff of the fact that the plaintiff did not appear at the time of the postponement of the disciplinary committee, the defendant company held the disciplinary committee and decided the disciplinary action of this case. Thus, if there are such circumstances, it cannot be said that the above disciplinary procedure is unlawful since the plaintiff notified the date

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Regarding the composition of the Disciplinary Committee:

The court below held that there is no procedure provision for disciplinary dismissal under the rules of employment of the defendant company, etc., and therefore the procedure provision of dismissal under the collective agreement of January 31, 2003 applies, and therefore the composition of the disciplinary committee is legitimate. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and decision are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or infringement of the plaintiff's right to defense, etc. as

4. Other grounds of appeal

Comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the court below found that the plaintiff was forced to work only one day from July 31, 2003 on the ground that "the defendant company ordered the plaintiff to work on board a day and refused to work on board a day, so the defendant company did not work on the ground that it did not work on board a day and did not work on more than statutory working hours." On August 21, 2003, the plaintiff and the defendant company were allowed to work on a shift in principle to the plaintiff, and paid 90,000,000 won to the defendant company for an additional 20 days on the ground that the defendant company did not work on board a day on July 31, 203, and the defendant company did not work on the ground that the defendant company did not work on board a day on the same day on the ground that it did not work on the 20th day on the ground that the defendant company did not work on the 4th day on the same day on the ground that the defendant company did not work on the 20th day on the ground that it did not work on the remaining 2th day on the defendant company.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the incomplete hearing or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)