해고무효확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the appeal.
1. The contents asserted by the Plaintiff following the judgment of the first instance court to this court are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the evidence added by this court, a thorough examination of the evidence added by this court is acceptable to acknowledge the facts and judgment by the first instance court.
Therefore, the court's reasoning concerning this case is that "Article 8 subparagraph 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance" is "Article 8 subparagraph 1 subparagraph 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance", "Article 3 subparagraph 3", "Article 3 subparagraph 1 subparagraph 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance", "Article 30 (1) 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance" in Article 30 subparagraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Article 16 and 17 of the 11th judgment" in Article 10 subparagraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "Article 8 subparagraph 6 and 7 of the court of first instance", "Article 8 subparagraph 3 of the court of first instance," and "Article 30 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act" in Article 30 subparagraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "Article 30 subparagraph 1 of the court of first instance, and Article 20 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.
2.On the 12th page, the addition shall add to the following:
【No.D. The Plaintiff was dismissed by the Defendant as a retaliation against the Defendant’s current unreasonable business conduct, and all other employees dismissed or dismissed by the Defendant were relieved through the litigation procedure.
However, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 14, namely, that disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was taken according to the result of audit conducted by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries concerning the recruitment cost of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and that a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of disciplinary action brought by other employees who were subject to disciplinary action by the Defendant is being brought separate, but this differs from the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the circumstance asserted by the Plaintiff is against the Plaintiff.