부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.
2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. Paragraph (2) is to add or change part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and Paragraph (3) is to add a judgment on the matters asserted by the intervenor in the trial of the court of first instance, and Paragraph (3) is to add a judgment on the matters asserted by the intervenor in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, this is to be cited in accordance with Article
2. Added and altered part of the judgment of the court of first instance
A. Following the “No. 43 Certificate” in Section 3 of Section 29 of the first instance judgment, “No. 36, and No. 37-1, 2” are added.
B. The part of the first instance court’s judgment regarding “in this case’s dismissal” as set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of the first instance judgment is changed to “in a case where the retirement benefit is paid at the reduction of 1/2, but the amount falls short of the minimum standard amount under the Labor Standards Act, the amount equivalent to the minimum standard amount under the Labor Standards Act shall be paid (Article 21(1) and (3). Accordingly, the removal of the instant case’s removal would result in the Plaintiff’s economic damage at least KRW 50,000,000.”
3. Judgment on the supplementary argument of the intervenor in the trial room
A. The Intervenor’s assertion 1) The part concerning the secured loan of February 27, 2006, which was the first misconduct in the instant case, and the part concerning the credit loan of November 27, 2006, among the 2 and 3 misconducts in the instant case, among the 4 misconducts in the instant case, the part which did not hold a credit committee in relation to the execution of each of the loans of November 8, 2005, February 27, 2006, and November 27, 2006, among the 4 misconducts in the instant case, was caused by the disciplinary reasons and the written request for the Intervenor’s decision on the resolution on the disciplinary action of November 27, 2012. Accordingly, each of the above parts has not been completed since the Intervenor’s assertion on the 7 misconducts in the instant case was based on the grounds for the 7 misconducts in the instant case.