[해고무효확인][공1992.9.1.(927),2407]
The case affirming the court below's decision that it is not effective to punish high-speed bus drivers starting from the rest area for the following vehicles upon requesting the staff of the rest area to load passengers who have not been aboard even after a considerable time to rest at the rest area of an expressway.
The case affirming the judgment below that since a high-speed bus driver was driving a express bus at the expressway, and the driver provided information to passengers about 15 minutes of break time while driving the expressway, and did not get on the expressway even after the break time, and the driver asked passengers to promptly get on the expressway as a result of guiding the rest area and fostering the bus, but there were no passengers getting on board, and it was delayed about 30 minutes of break time due to the circumstances of the expressway, and the passengers were late at the start time, the driver asked the employees of the rest area to get off the bus next to the following vehicle, and the bus started after about 5 minutes of boarding, and the passenger was asked to get off the bus without driving on the expressway, and the driver and the driver explained that it was impossible to get off the bus on the expressway, and that part of the passenger was not subject to disciplinary action against the above passenger on the bus without any justifiable reason, it cannot be said that the above passenger did not take any action against the passenger on the bus without any justifiable reason.
Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff
Han-jin Law Office, Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 91Na65550 delivered on March 25, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence, found that the plaintiff, who is an express bus driver of the defendant company, was driving an express bus at the expressway and used a broadcast to verify that the time was 15 minutes of break time to passengers, and the non-party, who did not get on the expressway even after the break time, and urged them to promptly get on the bus as well as the fostering of the plaintiff, and that there was no passenger, but the time was delayed about 30 minutes of break due to the circumstances of the on-road, and the number of passengers delayed over 30 minutes of break time. Thus, the court below affirmed the facts that the non-party, as the passenger of the defendant company, did not get on the bus at the end of 5 minutes after having arrived at the expressway, and that the non-party, as the passenger of the defendant company, did not get on the expressway, requested the plaintiff to set up the bus on his own, and that the plaintiff could not take any disciplinary measure against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's non-party, as the passenger's own passenger, and it did not have been justified.
The argument about this is ultimately attributable to the finding of facts and the cooking of evidence, which are the exclusive authority of the court below.
In addition, according to the facts established by the court below, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's act violates the personnel management rules of the defendant company and the service regulations stipulated by the employment rules.
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 Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)