The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The gist of the grounds of appeal as to the dismissal of rights is that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, disciplinary procedure, and disciplinary discretion. However, such a ground of appeal is clear that it does not fall under the grounds of appeal as provided in each subparagraph of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings,

2. As to the permitted appeal

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, based on its reasoning, revealed that the Plaintiff operated the camera of the vehicle from January 1, 1982 to April 30, 1982, and embezzled an amount equivalent to KRW 201,272 at the market price of 724 litresponding via the 724 litresponding. At the same time, the Defendant Company received a disposition of reduction of 10 percent for the three-month salary from the Defendant Company on May 31, 1982, and submitted a written pledge to comply with all the regulations of the Company.

1) During 1982.6, the Plaintiff unilaterally acknowledged the transit of 101 liter, 114 liter, and 227 liter, etc., transit over the standard quantity set by the Defendant Company, and 2) even though there was no leave plan during June 1982, it was requested to the head of the old and present office of the Defendant Company to grant four-day leave from June 23, 1982 to June 26, 1982, but the head of the above office did not issue an order to operate an export cargo 20: The Plaintiff did not start driving the above 22:40 on the day after he went through the old and present office without permission until 20:0 on the ground that there was no driver's intention to shift, and the Plaintiff did not want to start working at the end of 10:0 on the day after he started working at the end of 22:40,000 old and present at the end of 1:0 old and present office of the Defendant Company.

(2) Furthermore, the court below held that the above series of actions by the plaintiff can not be deemed to be a deviation from or abuse of discretion on disciplinary action in light of the plaintiff's degree of misconduct or the defendant's purpose of the disciplinary system, because it is obvious that such a series of actions by the defendant company constitutes grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the rules of employment, personnel service, and salary regulations of the defendant company, and therefore, it constitutes grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the rules of employment, personnel service, and salary regulations of the defendant company. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right of discretion on disciplinary action such as

(3) In general, in disciplinary dismissal of workers, if the procedures for disciplinary action are prescribed in the rules of employment, the procedure requires justice unless there is any counter-proof. However, if the procedures for the discipline accused person's appearance and giving an opportunity to make statements under the rules of employment are not prescribed, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that it was dismissed without following such procedures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da304, Jan. 30, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu306, Dec. 26, 1979; 79Nu306, Dec. 26, 1979). The judgment below rejected the Plaintiff's assertion that disciplinary action is null and void on the ground that the Defendant company's rules of employment (Evidence No. 4); personnel service regulations; and the salary regulations (Evidence No. 3) do not provide the opportunity to make statements to the Plaintiff when making a resolution for disciplinary action; therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to disciplinary proceedings like litigation.

3. 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 judges.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)