부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. C. between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the National Labor Relations Commission on April 10, 2018.
1. The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases where the conclusion is different, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: 6th to 14th to 21th.
3) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the facts that the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) forced the J to take a drinking time on several occasions and exceeded his/her work are recognized.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Intervenor was hospitalized for six months due to the Intervenor’s above unfair act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
Therefore, the grounds for the disciplinary action in this part are limited to the part that the intervenor forced the J to take a drinking part several times, and only the part that he had exceeded his work to J, and the rest is not recognized.
The Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of disciplinary action is reasonable within the scope of recognition, since the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of disciplinary action, excluding part among the instant grounds for disciplinary action 2, 3, 6 and 16, 3, 5, 5, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 100, 100, 10,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000
1) When a disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action on the grounds of disciplinary action, the decision to decide on the disciplinary action is placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, it is limited to the case where the person having authority to take the disciplinary action is deemed to abuse the discretion that has been placed to the person having authority to take the disciplinary action because the disciplinary action as the exercise of discretion is considerably inappropriate by social norms.