The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the legitimacy of disciplinary procedure

A. According to the rules of employment and other disciplinary measures, when a certain disciplinary cause occurs to a worker, a person who has the right to request a disciplinary resolution first requests the disciplinary committee to make a disciplinary resolution based on the grounds for disciplinary action, and the disciplinary committee provides that a person subject to disciplinary action shall be given an opportunity to state his/her opinion, and where a disciplinary resolution is made based on a written resolution stating the facts constituting the grounds for disciplinary action, etc., the disciplinary committee shall deliberate and determine only the grounds for disciplinary action for which a disciplinary resolution is requested by a person who has the right to request a disciplinary resolution, and shall not make a disciplinary resolution by adding the grounds for disciplinary action, such as fundamental revision of the grounds for disciplinary action or other circumstances

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da100919, Jan. 27, 2012). B

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and records, the court below determined that ① a disciplinary action against an employee under Article 48 of the Defendant’s personnel regulations shall be conducted by the chief director, who shall prepare a written request for disciplinary action under attached Form 7 and request the board of directors to make a disciplinary decision, and Article 50 stipulates that a discipline accused person shall be notified of his/her appearance at the board of directors seven days prior to the date of the meeting by submitting a explanatory statement or a notice of attendance at the board of directors in attached Form 10, and Article 54 stipulates that a disciplinary action shall be issued to a person subject to disciplinary action accompanied by a copy of the written resolution notified by the board of directors when executing the disciplinary action. ② The defendant’s board of directors held a regular board of directors on July 13, 2012 and deliberated on the disciplinary action agenda against the Plaintiff, and paid unfair allowances to the plaintiff who has