The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence, and held that since the defendant's personnel order to transfer the plaintiff to another guest room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room

2. Whether there is a misapprehension of legal principles concerning reasons for disciplinary action

The court below, on the ground that the plaintiff's act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 35 of the Rules of Employment, subparagraph 1 of attached Table 15 of the Rules of Employment, and subparagraph 3 of the same Article, and disciplinary action against the plaintiff on the ground that it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 35 of the Rules of Employment, Article 15 of the Rules of Employment, and Article 15 of the Rules of Employment, and Article 15 of the Rules of Employment, and it seems that simple violence, other than drinking violence under the name of the intervenor under subparagraph 7 of attached Table 15 of the Rules of Punishment, does not constitute the above items). The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's act of unlawful dismissal under Article 13 of the Rules of Employment was not all independent grounds for dismissal under Article 15 of the Rules of Employment or disciplinary action under Article 15 of the Rules of Employment, and thus, determined that the plaintiff's dismissal order was unlawful under Article 13 of the Rules of Employment, even if the plaintiff's dismissal order was against the order of disciplinary action under Article 15 of the Rules:

First of all, the court below deemed that a simple assault, which is not a drinking assault, under Article 15 subparagraph 7 of the Part 7 of the Intervenor's Detailed Punishment Regulation, does not fall under the above item. However, according to the records, Article 15 subparagraph 7 of the attached Table 15 of the above Detailed Punishment Regulation provides that each disposition of dismissal, suspension from office, or reduction of salary may be taken, "if the inside flag is drinking, and the inside flag was destroyed, or assault and abusively abused to the club and its superior". In light of the contents of the provision and the fact that there is no other amount of determination as to the violence against the company, etc., the latter part of the above provision constitutes the above provision only if the person committed an act under the influence of alcohol, and unlike the latter part of the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret that "the assault and abusive language against the club and its superior" falls under the above provision even if the person did not drinking. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

However, as the court below properly decided, the intervenor disciplinary action against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff's act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 35 of the Rules of Employment, Article 15 subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 3 of the attached Table 15 of the Detailed Rules of Punishment (violation of Orders), and each other misconduct such as assault does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action independently, but all other misconducts such as assault do not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. Thus, since the plaintiff's verbal abuse, assault, and assault against the above-mentioned or non-party 1, even though they fall under subparagraph 7 of the attached Table 15 of the Detailed Rules of Punishment, it cannot be an independent ground for dismissal. However, a disciplinary action should be determined in consideration of this point.

However, as seen in paragraph (1) above, since the above personnel order against the plaintiff is null and void, the refusal of the above personnel order among the facts charged by the plaintiff cannot be a ground for dismissal, and therefore, it does not constitute an independent ground for disciplinary action. Ultimately, it is recognized as an independent ground for disciplinary action only as an act falling under subparagraph 3 of attached Table 15 of the Detailed Punishment Regulations (the disturbance of work order). However, Article 27 (3) of the Detailed Punishment Regulations provides that disciplinary action may be determined in consideration of normal conditions according to the standard table of good faith. Thus, even if the disciplinary action of the plaintiff constitutes only subparagraph 3 (the disturbance of work order) of attached Table 15 of the Detailed Punishment Regulations which provides that the highest decision of the disciplinary action of the plaintiff is aggravated according to normal conditions, it can be said that the above dismissal is higher than that of the plaintiff's act of violence against the non-party 1, as well as the details and circumstances of the plaintiff's act of the above work order and the defendant's act of refusal of the above personnel order.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the intervenor's disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff exceeded the scope of a disciplinary decision should be justified. Thus, the court below's error in interpreting the attached Table 7 of Article 15 of the Punishment Regulation does not affect the conclusion of the judgment in this case.

The argument ultimately goes back to the absence of reason.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)