[징계면직무효확인등][공1997.9.1.(41),2453]
Where a company is automatically dismissed pursuant to the rules of employment, etc. without releasing the disposition for indefinite suspension received by the person subject to disciplinary action, the validity of the automatic dismissal disposition if the person subject to disciplinary action is automatically dismissed.
If a company's rules of employment, collective agreement, and commercial regulations stipulate that an inorganic suspension from office shall be automatically dismissed even after six months have passed, the automatic dismissal disposition shall be deemed as a real dismissal. Therefore, the automatic dismissal disposition shall be deemed as a justifiable reason under Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act for the purpose of rendering that disposition. However, if a company has duly rendered an inorganic suspension from office, it shall not be deemed that the automatic dismissal disposition itself constitutes an abuse of personnel rights or disciplinary rights unless it is revoked without any justifiable reason even though there are circumstances making it impossible to maintain the state of inorganic suspension from office, such as where there is no ground for inorganic suspension from office for six months thereafter, or where it is found that there is no reason for the inorganic suspension from office against the person subject to disciplinary action, or where the disciplinary action is deemed to have been done properly.
Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act
Supreme Court Decision 95Da1767 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3160 delivered on October 26, 1993) Supreme Court Decision 94Da4351 delivered on December 5, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 179), Supreme Court Decision 96Da21065 delivered on October 29, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3524 delivered on October 29, 196), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15926 delivered on October 29, 196 (Gong196Ha, 358) (Gong196Ha, 3588).
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Won-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Pakistan Investment Development Co., Ltd. (Attorney Im-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 96Na8729 delivered on January 10, 1997
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.
1. In light of the records, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff, as stated in its judgment, was exempted from the clothes of the above non-party in order to engage in sexual intercourse after taking the non-party, who is a female employee of the non-party who was in a state of loss of mind due to drinking during the ceremony, in order to have sexual intercourse after taking the non-party, who is a female employee of the non-party who was in a state of loss of mind during the ceremony, and that the non-party, in the process of resisting the above non-party, caused the non-party's injury of the principle
2. As duly established by the court below, the defendant company's rules of employment stipulate that in the case of inorganic civil service, a disciplinary measure may be automatically dismissed if it is not released after six months have passed. According to the collective agreement, in the case of inorganic civil service, a period of suspension from office shall be automatically dismissed if the cause is not extinguished even after six months have passed. According to the ordinary rules of punishment, in the case of inorganic civil service, an automatic dismissal is automatically dismissed if the cause is not terminated for six months, such an automatic dismissal disposition shall be deemed as an actual dismissal. Therefore, in order for the company to take such a measure, justifiable reasons under Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act are necessary (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da54210, Oct. 26, 1993; 95Da1767, Jul. 14, 1995; 96Da49390, Feb. 14, 1997).
On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the court below held that the measure taken by the defendant company to automatically dismiss the defendant company without releasing the suspension from office on the ground that the cause of the disciplinary action has not ceased to exist due to the absence of a good attendance to the plaintiff, is valid as it has a justifiable ground under Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and there is no error of law such
In addition, the court below held that the defendant company's automatic dismissal disposition cannot be deemed null and void even if there is procedural defect in the resolution of the personnel committee of the defendant company for automatic dismissal disposition against the plaintiff, since the defendant company's automatic dismissal disposition is not required to go through the procedure prescribed by the disciplinary action, etc., unless there is any provision on the procedure of automatic dismissal for six months or more of the above indefinite suspension disposition. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.
Based on the premise that the above automatic dismissal disposition is a separate disciplinary action against the indefinite suspension disposition, the automatic dismissal disposition may be conducted only when the disciplinary action against the person subject to the disciplinary action continues to be repeated for six months after the disposition is rendered in indefinite suspension, and the argument that the provision on the disciplinary procedure is applied to such automatic dismissal disposition is only an independent opinion. All arguments are without merit.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)