Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 307,500 won per month from November 10, 1981 to the time when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution for the above monetary amount shall be pronounced.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

On January 8, 1981, the fact that the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was a person who caused four traffic accidents within the year of November 10 of the same year while serving as an urban bus driver on the defendant company. There is no dispute between the parties.

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the four traffic accidents alleged by the defendant are the cases where there is no negligence on the plaintiff or where negligence is minor and thus, they cannot be deemed to be the multi-party subject to dismissal for this reason, and that the above dismissal disposition was made for the purpose of preventing the plaintiff from working as an executive member of the defendant company's trade union. Thus, the above dismissal disposition was made for the purpose of preventing the plaintiff from working as an executive member of the defendant company's trade union. Accordingly, the above dismissal disposition is invalid because it was made without any legitimate ground of dismissal or seriously abused the right to discipline. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's occurrence and recovery of the above traffic accident and its degree constitute "where it is deemed that there is no room to relieve the plaintiff," which is the ground for dismissal under Article 60 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company or disciplinary action under Article 98 of the Rules of Employment. The above dismissal disposition is legitimate.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 19-2, Eul evidence 20-7, and Eul evidence 20-1 and 20-2 of the above four traffic accidents, which were caused by the plaintiff's dismissal without any dispute over their establishment. According to the above facts, two of the above four traffic accidents, which were caused by the plaintiff's failure to take measures for dismissal, are not so-called contact and their causes are relatively minor that are less than 20,000 won due to the plaintiff's negligence, and the defendant's accident occurred on January 28 of the same year due to the plaintiff's failure to take measures for dismissal against the plaintiff's 1, 200,000 won due to the plaintiff's failure to take measures for dismissal, and the defendant's failure to take measures for dismissal of the plaintiff's 1,7,000,000 won due to the plaintiff's failure to take such measures for dismissal.

Meanwhile, in addition to the above traffic accidents, the defendant argued that the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff was legitimate, but the strictness, limit, and specification of the disciplinary cause is required in determining the legitimacy of the disciplinary action against the worker. Thus, it cannot be discussed whether the dismissal disposition is valid or not in accordance with the facts belonging to the cause of the disciplinary action and the legitimacy of the criteria, as well as other facts that are not the cause of the disciplinary action in question. Thus, even if the above facts alleged by the defendant are true and correct, it cannot be justified unless it is considered as the cause of the dismissal in this case. Thus, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted without examining further.

2. As to the following claims for wage payment:

As seen earlier, as long as the dismissal disposition in this case is null and void, the plaintiff still has the right to receive wages equivalent to the plaintiff's class at the time of the dismissal, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, and according to the testimony of Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 4, and witness Lee Jong-young (excluding the part not trusted above), it can be recognized that the plaintiff received wages of 307,500 won per month during the plaintiff's work for the defendant company, and there is no counter-proof evidence, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff wages at the rate of 307,500 won per month from November 10, 1981 to the day when the judgment in this case becomes final and conclusive.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)