부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision by reexamination are the same as the corresponding part of the decision by the court of first instance (from 8, 3, 19 of the decision by the court of first instance). Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 4th to 6th 3th 6th son of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
(b)as shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations;
C. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows, and this part of the judgment is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following parts as to the existence of grounds for disciplinary action and legitimacy of disciplinary action.
【In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s misconduct that the Plaintiff made an investment of KRW 1,30,000 (hereinafter “the ground for the ground for the ground for the disciplinary action”) at the time of the dismissal of the instant company (hereinafter “the ground for the ground for the disciplinary action”) in light of the following: (a) the existence of the grounds for the disciplinary action; (b) the facts acknowledged earlier; and (c) the evidence duly admitted to the competitor; and (d) the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 25-1 and No. 25-29; and (b) the evidence duly admitted as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s misconduct that the Plaintiff committed an investment of KRW 1,30,000 in the Mab cable Information and Communications Co., Ltd., Ltd., a competitor company using the borrowed account (hereinafter “the audit report”) is excluded from the ground for the disciplinary action at the time of the dismissal of the instant case; and (b) the audit report prepared at the time of the audit of the Group C affiliate.