B. In a case where the rules of employment provide that various kinds of disciplinary actions can be taken against the same disciplinary cause, whether the choice of disciplinary action is free discretion (negative)

(c) The case holding that a disciplinary dismissal disposition is null and void because it deviates from the discretionary scope.

B. Although the rules of employment provide that various kinds of disciplinary action against the same disciplinary cause may be imposed, if the rules of employment stipulate that certain kind of disciplinary action may exceptionally be imposed, the choice of disciplinary action among them shall belong to the discretion of the authorized person having authority over disciplinary action. However, such discretion does not belong to the discretion of the authorized person having authority over disciplinary action, but it is invalid as an abuse of the right to impose a harsh disciplinary action against a minor disciplinary cause, if there is a need for a balance between the disciplinary cause and the disciplinary action and the disciplinary action, which seems reasonable by social norms, and if there is a harsh disciplinary action against a minor disciplinary cause.

(c) The case holding that although the rules of employment provide that the act of distributing printed materials in the company without approval of the company shall be reduced or suspended and disciplinary action may be taken according to the circumstances, disciplinary dismissal disposition against the above act shall be deemed null and void as it deviates from the scope of discretion.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on August 12, 1987, the court below rejected the judgment below's assertion that the plaintiff made and distributed printed items at the time of original adjudication together with other employees of the defendant company; distributed printed items in August 27 of the same year; distributed printed items as indicated in the judgment; the plaintiff was actively involved as ordinary union members; the plaintiff was posted to the factory of the defendant company; and the defendant company did not make a collective agreement with the temporary chairperson of the labor union on September 10, 1987; and the defendant company agreed not to hold all civil and criminal liability for the case during the period of farming; the defendant company did not take any disciplinary action against the plaintiff company against the defendant company; and it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of the defendant company's duty to instigate workers under the name of ordinary union members; or caused the plaintiff to spread printed materials under the name of the defendant company; or the defendant's act of violation of the rules of evidence that led the defendant company's work.

2. Furthermore, the court below determined that the defendant company's act of distributing the plaintiff's incentives can not be subject to disciplinary action on the ground that it did not hold the plaintiff's union members liable under the collective agreement on September 10, 1987, and that the defendant company's act of distributing the plaintiff's incentives and the act of distributing the plaintiff's incentives can not be deemed as falling under subparagraph 2 of Article 109 and subparagraph 13 of Article 110 of the above rules of employment. However, the collective agreement that did not impose all responsibility to union members on the case during the farming period should be deemed as exempt from liability for the above act during the farming period as well as preparing the act of distributing the plaintiff's agricultural nature and unity, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act of distributing the plaintiff's incentives can not be viewed as a disciplinary action against the plaintiff's act of distributing the plaintiff's home business without permission for the reason that it did not constitute a violation of Article 1109 subparagraph 2 of the above rules of employment.

The above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds.

If the rules of employment provide that various kinds of disciplinary action against the same disciplinary cause may be taken, but if the rules of employment provide that the kind of disciplinary action against any kind of disciplinary cause may be taken more severely depending on the circumstances, the choice of disciplinary action among them shall belong to the discretion of the person with authority to take the disciplinary action.

However, such discretion does not belong to the arbitrary and convenient discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary action, and there is a need to maintain balance between the grounds for disciplinary action and the disciplinary action, which seems to be reasonable by social norms, and the imposition of harsh sanctions on minor disciplinary grounds should be null and void as abuse of rights.

According to Article 109 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company, the act of distributing printed materials in the company without approval of the company shall be reduced or suspended, and it shall be subject to disciplinary action according to normal circumstances. Article 110 subparagraph 13 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company shall be subject to disciplinary action against the person who instigates a strike. The court below is not subject to disciplinary action due to a collective agreement which provides that the acts of the plaintiff falling under Article 110 subparagraph 13 of the above Article shall not be subject to disciplinary action because of the collective agreement which provides that the acts of the plaintiff falling under Article 110 subparagraph 13 of the above, and the acts of the plaintiff falling under Article 109 shall not be deemed bad behavior to the extent that the disciplinary action is to be taken, and the disposition of dismissal by the defendant shall be judged to be null and void

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)