(b) A case where dismissal from position under the employer's personnel regulations belongs to an unfavorable disposition in personnel affairs;

(c) “When removal from position is ordered, it shall be notified to the principal of the reasons for such order and the time and method of notification of the reasons therefor.”

(d) The case holding that the removal from position, which failed to notify of the reason under the personnel regulations of Paragraph (c) above, is denied;

E. Whether it violates the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy or double punishment in a case where a disciplinary action is taken for any reason but it can be evaluated as a ground for removal from position (negative)

B. According to the employer's personnel regulations, the removal from position is cancellation of a position that prevents an employee from engaging in his/her duties because he/she temporarily fails to assign a position without undergoing special procedures in a criminal case where he/she is prosecuted, etc., and disciplinary action is different bilaterally in that he/she repeatedly violates important rules, etc., but a person subject to removal from position is not only prohibited from performing any duties but also subject to unfavorable treatment in promotion, rank, payment of remuneration, etc., and further, he/she may be subject to ex officio dismissal on the basis of dismissal from position in certain cases.

C. In light of the personnel regulations, where "where the removal from position is ordered, it shall be notified to the person in question." In light of the fact that the removal from position is an unfavorable disposition against an employee who is conducted by the person in charge of personnel affairs, the purport of the above provision regarding notification of the reason for the removal from position is to guarantee the person's opportunity to be informed of the reason why the removal from position was caused by the person in question and to ensure the person in charge of personnel affairs, as well as to ensure the person in charge of personnel affairs, by making the person in charge of personnel affairs carefully and reasonably determine the existence of the reason for the removal from position and exclude the person from his/her position. Even if there is no provision regarding the time and method of notification of the reason for the removal from position within the above personnel regulations, the notification of the reason for the removal from position should be made in writing, orally, etc. at the same time, without delay or by oral means after the removal from position, and unless there are any special circumstances that the person in question knows a specific reason for the removal from position by himself/herself, it should be notified to the same extent.

(d) The case holding that in full view of the content of the personnel regulations stating that “an employee shall not be ex officio, leave of absence, removal from position, or any other unfavorable disposition against his will,” and that in the case of removal from position under the personnel regulations, unlike the case of disciplinary action, the purport of the personnel regulations in the above Article 12(c) should be newly emphasized on the ground that the employee concerned does not have any prior opportunity to make a statement favorable to himself/herself or request ex post facto review, unlike the case of disciplinary action, and that the purport of the personnel regulations in the above Article 14(c

E. The dismissal from position differs from that of a disciplinary punishment, which is different in nature from that of a disciplinary punishment, and thus, if it is possible to be evaluated as a ground for dismissal from position, it may be new dismissal from position on this ground. This does not conflict with the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy or double punishment.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

In our civil litigation system which employs the principle of pleading, the principle of party, and the principle of disposition, the existence of a principal fact can not be based on the judgment unless the parties have asserted, and the court is bound by the fact that there is no dispute between the parties in the pleading.

However, even though the court is desirable to separate the facts acknowledged by the facts without dispute and the evidence in order to clarify the reasons for the judgment, it may be decided in a lump sum without distinguishing the facts acknowledged by the facts without dispute and the evidence, and in this case, it is sufficient to distinguish between the parties without considering the above principles of pleading, etc., and if there is no dispute between the parties and the facts acknowledged by the facts found by the evidences, it is sufficient to distinguish between the parties.

The issue is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the principle of pleading, the principle of party's right to disposition, or the principle of right to disposition, and the mistake of facts, the contradiction of reasoning, or the lack of reasoning due to the violation of the rules of evidence, without specifically specifying which part of the facts confirmed by the court below are inconsistent with the principles of pleading, etc., and it cannot be accepted. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the personnel regulations of Defendant Corporation, in cases where an employee is prosecuted for a criminal case, the dismissal from position is released from his/her position so that he/she does not perform his/her duties because he/she temporarily fails to assign a position without undergoing special procedures (Article 24(1) of the Personnel Management Regulations). Where an employee neglects his/her duties without good cause, where the employee neglects his/her duties without good cause, regardless of whether he/she is inside or outside of his/her duties, where he/she divulges his/her official secrets, or where he/she causes a serious loss to Defendant Corporation by intention or gross negligence (Article 45 of the Personnel Management Regulations). However, in light of Article 48 of the Personnel Management Regulations (Article 46 of the Personnel Management Regulations), he/she is subject to removal from position based on the above duties, and Article 25(1) and (2) of the Personnel Management Regulations (Article 25(1) of the Personnel Management Regulations), Article 17(1)2(3) of the Personnel Management Regulations and Article 17(2) of the Remuneration Regulations.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the removal from the position of an employee is not a disadvantage disposition different from the disciplinary action in the dissenting opinion.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is identical to the theory that there was a part of the judgment as if the removal from position was one disciplinary measure taken by the exercise of the disciplinary power of the defendant's president of the Corporation, but the reasoning of the judgment below is examined as a whole. However, the court below clearly stated that the reason, procedure, or effect of the removal from position is different from the disciplinary measure even in the case of the reason, procedure, or effect of the removal from position, on the premise that the removal from position is the personnel measures for the removal from position that can be taken by the defendant's president of the Corporation who is the personnel management authority. Therefore, it

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. On the third and fourth grounds:

According to Article 24(2) of the personnel regulations of the defendant Corporation, the reason for the removal from position is to be notified to the principal when the removal from position is ordered under paragraph (1) of the same Article. In light of the fact that the removal from position is a disadvantageous disposition against an employee who is ordered by the person with personnel authority ex officio, the above provision on notification of the reason for removal from position is to guarantee the principal's opportunity for objection by allowing the person to know about the reason why the removal from position was made, and to ensure the person with personnel authority to carefully and reasonably determine the existence of the reason for removal from position and exclude the person from his/her position. In addition, the above personnel regulations on notification of the reason for removal from position do not provide any provision on the time and method of notification of the reason for removal from position within the above personnel regulations, so long as the above purport of the personnel regulations on notification of the reason for removal from position is not provided by the person with authority at the same time or by oral or other appropriate means after the removal from position, and the employee should not be deemed to have any other unfavorable reason for removal from position in accordance with the above provision of the article 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in light of the substance of the removal from position or Article 4 of the above personnel regulations, the court below presumed that the notification of the removal from position should be made at the same time by a document stating the reasons at least identical to the facts at least, at the same time. The evidence No. 1 (the notification of personnel notification dated October 25, 198) merely provides that "the notification of the removal from position under Article 24 (1) of the above personnel regulations shall be given" and it does not contain any specific reasons for removal from position, and the evidence No. 16 (the notification of the reasons for removal from position as of March 21, 1989) is prepared five months after the date of removal from position, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a notification of the reasons for removal from position under Article 24 (2) of the above personnel regulations by delivery or service, and it cannot be viewed that the notification of the above reasons for removal from position cannot be viewed as invalid by the court below's oral explanation or oral reasons for removal from position.

This paper also has no reason.

4. As to the fifth ground for appeal:

Upon examining the judgment of the court below, the court below held that, in determining whether the specific facts of six (a) through (f) of the defendant Corporation's six (6) at the time of the original adjudication on the dismissal of the plaintiff's position, which are the grounds for the removal of the plaintiff's position, fall under the substantive reasons for the removal of the plaintiff's position, some of them are the grounds for the plaintiff already subject to the reduction of salary 1 months and warning disposition, and the contribution to the plaintiff's work, etc., in light of the plaintiff's above reasons for the assertion of the defendant Corporation's work, the above reasons for the allegation of the defendant Corporation does not fall under the "faith of work attitude, etc." to the extent that the plaintiff should be dismissed, and in particular, the problem of the tunnel level down of crude oil storage base, which is already terminated without any particular damage to the defendant Corporation two (2) months prior to the date of the removal of the position, it did not appear that the plaintiff's genuine reasons for the removal of the plaintiff's position to the defendant Corporation, as stated in the National Assembly's opinion in addition to the reason for gas leakage work.

However, as mentioned earlier, the removal from position differs from that of a disciplinary measure, which is different in nature from that of a disciplinary measure, and even if a disciplinary measure was taken for a certain reason, if it can be evaluated as a ground for the removal from position, it may be newly removed from position on that ground. This is the same as a lawsuit that does not conflict with the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy or double punishment, but rather, it does not state the purport that the above ground of the judgment of the court below cannot be taken again on the ground of the grounds that the disciplinary measure was based on the grounds that it was based on a disciplinary measure. Therefore, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of prohibition against double Jeopardy or double punishment

In addition, according to the records, the above reasons for (a) and (b) are problematic before the plaintiff was ordered to be assigned to the position of the director of the above management office, and the plaintiff was ordered to be assigned to the position of the director of the above management office despite the existence of such reasons. (c) The reasons for (d) are not reprimanded in the position of the first supervisor of the lost cable, but merely reprimanded in the position of the director as the senior supervisor of the office. Accordingly, the plaintiff was damaged immediately by the security service company, and the reasons for (d), (e) and (f) are different from the theory of lawsuit, even if the so-called "unfair act" occurred in the course of the plaintiff's heat performance of duty, and it is not a problem related to personal interests of the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the above reasons for the defendant's allegation does not constitute "faith of duty" to the extent that the plaintiff should be dismissed from his position, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the removal from position without evidence.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)