부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Intervenor committed a very serious violation of trust, called the theft of the Plaintiff’s assets; (b) even if the Plaintiff’s factory, among the factories, requires strong trust relationship as the sole employee in charge of waste disposal, in the sales-based plant (hereinafter “the sales-based plant”); and (c) even before the dismissal of the instant plant, there was the power to prepare the horse-based statement in violation of the guidance procedure.
The plaintiff provided education several times that the plaintiff would be severely punished when violating the security regulations while providing the security education, and if he treats the serious misconducts such as the instant misconducts, the plaintiff's business order is disturbed.
In light of the above circumstances, the decision on reexamination of this case is unlawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff does not have a trust relationship at a level that maintains employment relations with the Intervenor under social norms; and (b) the right of disciplinary discretion should be respected.
B. The dismissal disposition of the legal doctrine related to the 1-related case is justified in cases where there are grounds for an employee's responsibility to the extent that the employee cannot continue the employee's employment relationship. Whether it is impossible to continue the employee's employment relationship with the employee is determined by social norms shall be determined by comprehensively examining all the circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer's business, the circumstances of the workplace, the status and the duty of the employee in question, the motive and circumstance of the act of misconduct, the impact on the company's business order, the risk of disturbing the corporate deceptive order