부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant as to the intervenor B shall be revoked, and the plaintiff as to the above revoked part shall be the plaintiff.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff”) is a corporation that employs 4,00 full-time workers and operates a comprehensive construction project.
On May 1, 1994, the Intervenor B entered the Plaintiff Company, and the Intervenor C joined the Plaintiff Company on June 12, 2006, and at the time of each of the following disciplinary dismissal, the Intervenor B was the head of the Global Marketing Headquarters, and the Intervenor C served as the head of the public service team belonging to the Civil Service Environment Headquarters.
B. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff Company held a personnel committee and violated Article 6(4) of the Rules of Employment and Article 2(2) of the Action Rule of the Plaintiff Company by making monetary transactions with D who is an interested party (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”), and (2) violated Article 6(6) of the Rules of Employment and Article 3(1) and (3) of the Rules of Conduct (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”), by spreading false facts or confirmations related to the Plaintiff Company, and documents that slander the management and specific departments of the Plaintiff Company through intra-company Kafs, and beginning on the Internet Kafs established by the Plaintiff Company, etc. (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”); and (3) violated Article 3(1) and (3) of the Rules of Conduct without permission, by making use of audit data for personal purposes (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”); and (4) Article 11(3) and Article 12 of the Audit Regulations of the Plaintiff Company.
(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 4”) decided disciplinary dismissal in accordance with the criteria for disciplinary action under Article 56(1)1, 3, and 9 of the Rules of Employment and Labor, and the criteria for disciplinary action under the Rules of Employment, and notified the Intervenor B of such decision on April 4, 2014.
C. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff Company held a personnel committee and neglected to manage the secret approval number by the Intervenor C (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason”) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason”) and the Kimpo-si E (hereinafter “Gimpo-si”).