손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff Union claimed the Defendant for the compensation of KRW 15,00,000 due to embezzlement, and the compensation of KRW 30,000,000 due to the payment of charges for compelling compliance, as well as the compensation of KRW 15,00,00 for delayed payment, and the compensation for delayed payment. The first instance court rendered a judgment citing all the remainder of the claim except for the part of the claim for partial delay payment.
Since the defendant appealed to the part of the claim for damages caused by the payment of enforcement fines, the subject of adjudication of this court is limited to the claim for damages caused by the payment of enforcement fines.
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff-related Plaintiff Union is an incorporated association established for the purpose of solid cooperation among business operators running C in the Gyeong-do and improvement of facilities C related to C, education and training of business operators and employees. From January 1, 2012, the Defendant was a director with the power of representation until April 3, 2014, issued a decision to suspend the execution of duties by the court (Seoul District Court Kimcheon-do 2014Kahap3).
B. 1) Imposition of enforcement fines by the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “the first board of directors of the instant case”) on August 11, 2012 by the Plaintiff Union.
(1) A resolution to dismiss D who had worked as a managing director of the Plaintiff Union (hereinafter referred to as “the primary dismissal”) by holding 18 votes among the 18 persons, 10 votes, and 8 dissenting votes.
2) On December 12, 2012, D applied for suspension of duties and application for removal from office to the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on December 12, 2012, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) decided that D’s restoration to the former position and payment of the amount equivalent to D’s wages that could have been received if D had normally worked during the period of dismissal is invalid as it was found that there was procedural defect in the process of failing to give written notice of dismissal to D by stating the grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.