December 23, 2016

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part incurred by the participation in the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that ordinarily employs approximately 200 workers and engages in water treatment, manufacturing and selling of medicines for environment and process.

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant who was employed and worked for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was punished against the Plaintiff on June 26, 2015 by the Intervenor’s Intervenor 1, the Intervenor 3, the Intervenor 3, July 8, 2015, and the Intervenor 2, the Intervenor 2, on July 24, 2015, based on the following grounds for dismissal:

1) An intervenor 1

① The distribution of false facts related to dismissal: The promotion of the division of organization and the loss resulting from the distribution of false facts that, if Nonparty 1 won in a trial on adult guardianship, Nonparty 5 will dismiss Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7 et al. and three others (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action”)

② The spread of false facts related to the PAC: around September 2014, the employee distorted the contents of PAC-related dialogues among the employees and delivered them to the former management dismissed to the Plaintiff and the civil and criminal litigation, and the former management, on its own basis, requested a provisional disposition against Nonparty 5 to maintain the illegal act against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action against 1-2”).

(3) Non-performance of instructions to manage claims: Refusal to perform duties on the ground that it is difficult to perform duties" although he/she has given instructions to manage non-performing loans and collect money, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "grounds for disciplinary action against Article 1-3

④ 인수인계 의무 불이행 : 2014. 8. ◁◁◁◁팀에서 ▷▷▷부로 발령이 났으며, 이때 인수인계사항에 법무 관련 사항이 누락되어 요청하였으나, 법무 관련 업무 인수인계를 고의적으로 하지 아니함(이하 ‘제1-4징계사유’라 한다).

(5) Illegal video filmings: A person who illegally employs staff members of the Guridong History, a technical partner, from a Japanese society on April 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "grounds for disciplinary action against a person under Article 1-5") to take the video photograph (hereinafter referred to as "grounds for disciplinary action").

2) Intervenor 3

On August 11, 2014, the board of directors of the Plaintiff, which is a shareholder of 100% of the Chinese corporation’s “China Environment and Limited Liability Corporation” (hereinafter referred to as “China”) (hereinafter referred to as “China”), appointed Nonparty 4 as a middle executive partner on August 11, 2014, without recognizing it, there are the following grounds for dismissal:

① 2015. 4. 29. ♤♤♤♤팀으로 이동발령을 명하고 2015. 5. 13.까지 발령부서로 출근할 것을 명하였으나 출근하지 않고 인사명령을 따르지 않으며 무단으로 결근하고 있음(이하 ‘제2-1징계사유’라 한다).

② On April 27, 2015, when an executive officer or employee, other than Nonparty 4 president, who is the statutory representative of the Plaintiff’s representative director and the statutory representative, visits the Chinese office, non-compliance with the request for access to the office and confinement of Nonparty 8 chief (hereinafter “Disciplinary Grounds”) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Grounds”).

③ On August 27, 2014, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5’s president, and GB Global two visits, when Nonparty 9 asked the Intervenor to assist the Intervenor in leaving the entrance and leaving the entrance off to the public by unauthorized intrusion upon the visitor, the Nonparty 9 asked him/her, but, at the same time in the entrance, it is consistent and consistent with the act of confinement (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action of Article 2-3”).

3) Intervenor 2

Although the board of directors appointed Nonparty 4 as a major executive partner on August 11, 2014, the board of directors did not recognize the appointment of the non-party 4 as a major executive partner, there are the following grounds for dismissal, without complying with the orders of the plaintiff and the middle executive partner.

① 2015. 4. 29. ♤♤♤♤팀으로 이동발령을 명하고 2015. 5. 13.까지 출근을 명하였다가 △△□□소의 인원 충원이 필요하여 2015. 5. 12. △△□□소로 이동할 것을 명하면서 대기발령을 면하고 발령부서로 2015. 5. 18.부로 출근할 것을 명하였으나 출근하지 않고 인사명령을 따르지 않으며 무단으로 결근하고 있음(이하 ‘제3-1징계사유‘라 한다).

② On April 27, 2015, Nonparty 4, a statutory representative of the Plaintiff’s representative director and the number of employees, other than Nonparty 4, visited the Chinese office, shall comply with the direction of the officer previously dismissed, and non-performance of the order to request the entry of the office of Nonparty 4, a statutory representative, and confinement of Nonparty 8’s chief (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action”).

C. On September 10, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that disciplinary dismissal against the Intervenor was unfair and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On November 9, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission issued a remedy order as to the Intervenor 1 on the ground that dismissal against the Intervenor 1 was unfair and unfair. The Intervenor’s dismissal against the Intervenor 3 and the Intervenor 2 was justifiable, and thus dismissed the said Intervenor’s request for remedy.

D. On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission did not recognize the grounds for disciplinary action regarding the dismissal of the Intervenor 1 on March 28, 2016. Based on the grounds for disciplinary action under Articles 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4, the dismissal of the Intervenor 1 on the ground that disciplinary action was imposed, and thus, the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination is dismissed. The Plaintiff’s application for reexamination is dismissed on the ground that the grounds that the grounds for disciplinary action regarding the dismissal of the Intervenor 3 and the Intervenor 2 are not recognized, and the part regarding the above Intervenor was revoked and the order for remedy was issued (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

E. Of the Plaintiff’s rules of employment (hereinafter “Rules”), rules on the operation of overseas financial resources (hereinafter “Rules of Employment”), and Articles of Incorporation, the contents relating to the instant case are as follows.

5. Basic Principles of Service 1) Members shall endeavor to concentrate on their duties and improve the efficiency of their duties in accordance with the company’s policy, regulations and instructions. 6. Members of the service rules shall strictly observe the following matters and may order the movement of the company in good faith and prompt manner within 43. (2) Members ordered in the preceding paragraph shall be assigned to new work place within 14 days from the date of issuance: Provided, That this shall not apply if the company has obtained the approval of the company for inevitable reasons; 2. Members of the company shall be subject to disciplinary action on 3.0 days from the date of issuance; 3. Members of the company shall be subject to replacement order and replacement order from the date of their initial service; 3. Members of the company shall be subject to replacement order and replacement order from the date of their initial service; 16 days from the date of absence without permission; 3. Members of the company shall be subject to replacement order and replacement order from the date of their initial service place to the extent that they violate their respective rules and regulations:

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 16, and 54, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The grounds for disciplinary action against the intervenors are recognized to be justifiable, and the disciplinary action against the intervenors cannot be deemed to be excessive, and thus, the decision of the retrial of this case is unlawful on a different premise, despite the legitimacy of disciplinary action against the intervenors.

B. Relevant statutes

/ Labor Standards Act

Article 23 (Restriction on Dismissal, etc.)

(1) An employer shall not, without justifiable cause, dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer a worker, reduce wages, or take other disciplinary measures (hereinafter referred to as "unfair dismissal, etc.") against a worker.

(c) Whether there exists any justifiable ground for dismissal against an intervenor 1;

1) Whether to recognize the grounds for disciplinary action

A) As to the grounds of disciplinary action No. 1-1

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 27, 32, and 35.

① On August 12, 2014, Nonparty 4 announced that when the review of a series of maritime actions that occurred in the company was completed, Nonparty 4 would take personnel measures according to the gravity.

② On September 12, 2014, Nonparty 4, who did not comply with the instruction of the superior officer even after the said announcement, or committed some acts of disturbing the internal order by spreading distorted facts, inciting employees, etc., and thereafter, Nonparty 4 notified Nonparty 4 in the company that it would be subject to disciplinary action pursuant to the rules of employment, as it constitutes an act that disturbs the order in the workplace by delivering talks, information, etc. with good purposes to the people inside and outside of the company, by forging false facts or distorted facts, or by spreading distorted facts.

③ On January 9, 2015, Nonparty 1 announced Nonparty 1 as a major shareholder and representative director of the company that no qualification, name, and possibility that all management, including Nonparty 2, including Nonparty 2, will recover the management right, and that he/she will take measures for the following groups if illegal and maritime actions were to be done.

④ 참가인 1은 2015. 6. 9.경 ◎◎◎◎본부 ◁◁◁◁팀 소속 소외 12에게 “소외 1에 대한 성년후견사건에서 소외 1이 승소할 경우 소외 5 전무가 △△□□소 소외 6, 소외 7, ♡♡소 소외 13, 소외 14, 소외 15를 해고한다고 하니, 생각을 잘 해라.”라고 말하였다. 그러나 소외 5는 위와 같이 말한 사실이 없다.

⑤ 소외 6과 소외 7은 2015. 6. 12.경 소외 5에게 ‘소외 1이 성년후견사건에서 승소할 경우 소외 5 전무가 소외 6, 소외 7을 포함하여 ♡♡소 소외 13 차장, 소외 14 차장, 소외 15 대리 등 5명을 해고할 것이라‘는 소문을 듣게 되었는데, 매우 기분이 나쁘고 의욕도 떨어지고 앞으로 회사를 위해 일하고 싶은 생각이 없으니 해고 당하기 전에 자진하여 퇴사하고자 한다고 말하였고, 소외 5는 소외 6, 소외 7에게 그런 말을 한 사실이 없다고 하면서 퇴사를 만류하였으나, 소외 6, 소외 7은 같은 날 원고에 개인적인 사유로 인하여 회사생활을 지속하기 어렵다는 사직사유를 기재한 사직원을 제출하고 2015. 6. 30.부로 퇴사하였다.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is unclear whether the resignation of the non-party 6 and the non-party 7 caused the non-party 1's false conviction, but the intervenor 1 falsely told the non-party 5 to dismiss the plaintiff's specific staff, such as the non-party 6 and the non-party 7, according to the result of the adult guardianship case against the non-party 1, thereby impairing the order in the workplace. Thus, the ground for disciplinary action No. 1-1 constitutes the ground for disciplinary action under Article 53 (16)

B) As to the grounds for disciplinary action in Article 1-2

The written evidence No. 37 and No. 38-1 and No. 2 are insufficient to recognize whether the Intervenor 1 delivered the contents of the PAC produced by the Plaintiff to Nonparty 2, the former management, etc. around September 2014, and how to distort any content related to the PAC, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1-2 are not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

C) As to the grounds for disciplinary action in Article 1-3

The following facts are recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 39 through 41, and 66.

① 참가인 1은 ◎◎◎◎본부 ◁◁◁◁팀 팀장으로 근무하던 중 2014. 8. 12. ☆☆본부 ▷▷▷부 전문위원으로 발령되었다(이하 ‘이 사건 인사발령’이라 한다).

② Around September 1, 2014, Nonparty 5 instructed the Intervenor 1 to perform the duties of managing claims and agents, but the Intervenor 1 refused to perform the said duties on the ground that it is an unfair instruction.

③ 참가인 1의 상급자인 ▷▷▷부 부장 소외 16은 2015. 3. 25. 참가인 1에게 부실채권 및 장기채권 현황 리스트를 보여주며 업체를 조사하여 부실채권 발생경위와 채권회수 업무를 지시하였으나 참가인 1은 ‘영업사원이 못 받는 돈을 내가 어떻게 받아내느냐? 하기 어렵고, 안하겠다. 차라리 해고해라.’라고 말하면서 거부하였다. 소외 16은 같은 날 참가인 1에게 ‘부실채권 및 장기채권 현황’을 첨부하여 업무를 진행하라는 취지의 이메일을 보냈으나 참가인 1은 그로부터 약 69일이 지난 2015. 6. 2.에 이르러서야 위 이메일을 확인하였다.

④ On June 15, 2015, Nonparty 5 instructed Nonparty 5 to engage in the affairs related to the management of non-performing loans and the collection of money, but the Intervenor 1 rejected it.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the intervenor 1 has refused to issue a business order without justifiable grounds, it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 53(3) of the Rules of Employment.

참가인 1은 이에 대하여 인사총무 업무를 담당하던 참가인 1을 업무 성격이 다른 영업부서로 이동발령한 이 사건 인사명령은 실질적으로 징계라고 보아야 하는데 원고가 징계절차를 거치지 아니하였으므로 이 사건 인사명령은 위법하고, 참가인 1이 위 ▷▷▷부의 업무를 수행하지 아니한 것은 정당한 징계사유가 될 수 없다는 취지로 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제66호증의 기재에 의하면 원고는 2007. 1. 1.부터 2009. 1. 25.까지 ♤♤♤♤부에서 근무한 전력이 있고, 근로자인 참가인 1에 대한 이 사건 인사명령은 원칙적으로 인사권자인 원고의 권한에 속하는 것이며, 이 사건 인사명령으로 인하여 참가인 1에게 어떠한 불이익이 발생하는지를 알 수 있는 아무런 자료가 없으므로, 원고가 참가인 1을 ◁◁◁◁팀과 업무 성격이 다른 ▷▷▷부로 발령하였다는 것만으로 이 사건 인사명령이 위법한 것이라고 볼 수 없는바, 참가인 1의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

Therefore, the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1-3 are recognized as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action.

D) As to the grounds of disciplinary action No. 1-4

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 42, and 45, the Plaintiff’s business transfer and takeover rules provide that the transferor shall immediately prepare and accurately, upon receipt of the order of the transfer of his duties, the business transfer transferor’s list and the list of transfer and takeover of duties in which the matters to be planned, the matters to be resolved, the important documents, and the statement of account books are entered, and notify the transferee and the confirmation person thereof. ② The Plaintiff’s business team is the legal department, ② the Plaintiff’s business team is the legal affairs team, ③ the Intervenor was in charge of the legal affairs team at the time of the instant personnel order, ④ the fact that there was a legal dispute between the Plaintiff and the director at the time of the instant personnel order and the non-party 17, etc. who were dismissed from the Plaintiff at the time of the instant personnel order, ⑤ the Intervenor’s successor Nonparty 18, the Intervenor’s successor, requested the Intervenor 1 to transfer the legal affairs including the legal affairs indicated in the certificate of transfer and transfer list.

In light of the status of the Intervenor 1, the duties of the fund management team, and legal disputes with the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, etc., the Intervenor 1 appears to have failed to faithfully performed the transferor’s legal affairs to Nonparty 18, a successor, and thus, the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff 1-4 are recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

E) As to the grounds for disciplinary action in Article 1-5

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 40, when the intervenor 1 visited the non-party 5 who was the plaintiff's partner company on April 2014 and met the non-party 5, the intervenor 1 can be acknowledged as having employed the staff of the entertainment center and had them photograph the head of his/her body image.

However, the Intervenor 1 asserted that the above act was done in accordance with Nonparty 2’s instructions, and therefore, it appears that Nonparty 2 was the Plaintiff’s director. The Intervenor 1 appears to have failed to refuse to follow the instructions. The Plaintiff asserted that taking the video was illegal, but the Plaintiff did not explain how it was illegal, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the conversation between the employees of the Sim Industries Co., Ltd. and Nonparty 5 was recorded in the video. In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to find out that the Intervenor 1 violated any Act and subordinate statutes or regulations merely based on the above facts.

Therefore, the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1-5 are not recognized as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action.

3) Whether disciplinary action is appropriate

In full view of the following circumstances, it is sufficient to recognize the validity of disciplinary dismissal against the Intervenor 1 on the ground that the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 1 are not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action, but are not recognized as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 1 on the sole basis of the grounds for disciplinary action against Articles 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, and 1-4, which are not recognized as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action.

가) 참가인 1은 이 사건 인사명령에 따른 인수인계 업무를 성실히 이행하지 아니하였고, 이 사건 인사명령 이후 상급자인 소외 5, 소외 16의 정당한 업무 지시를 지속적으로 거부하면서 2014. 8. 12.경부터 징계해고일인 2014. 7. 24.까지 ▷▷▷부의 업무를 정상적으로 수행하지 아니한 것으로 보이는데, 이는 근로계약의 주된 급부인 노무제공의무를 현저하게 해태한 것이다.

나) 참가인 1은 이 사건 인사명령이 부당하다고 주장하면서 새로이 발령받은 ▷▷▷부의 업무가 자신이 수행하기 어려운 것이라는 사정만을 들어 사용자의 업무 지시를 지속적으로 거부하였는데, 이는 이 사건 인사명령에 대한 항의의 수단으로서는 상당성을 결여한 것이고, 참가인 1로서는 최소한 새로이 부여된 업무를 수행하려고 하는 노력을 다하였어야 한다.

C) Although the Intervenor 1 notified Nonparty 1 that he would be dismissed with respect to the result of the adult guardianship case against Nonparty 1 president despite having known Nonparty 1 that the Plaintiff would not commit any act that disturbs the order of the workplace by spreading false facts, etc. In spite of the dispute between the former management and the current management, the Intervenor 1 forced Nonparty 19, a subordinate employee of the Plaintiff, to answer whether he would comply with Nonparty 3 who is the former management or not. Such remarks and actions by the Intervenor 1 would impair the order of the Plaintiff’s business.

D) If the intervenor 1 seems to have seen the Plaintiff’s personnel order, business direction, etc., and comments and actions against other employees, it is difficult to expect the Intervenor 1 to perform the obligation to provide normal labor.

(d) Whether there is a justifiable reason for disciplinary dismissal against the intervenor 3 and the intervenor 2;

1) Facts of recognition

A) Nonparty 1 was the largest shareholder holding 51% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff, and was the Plaintiff’s director from March 21, 201 to August 29, 201, and was dismissed from the Plaintiff’s representative director on August 4, 2016.

B) Nonparty 2 is a shareholder holding 1.08% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff with Nonparty 1’s largest children. Nonparty 2 was appointed as the Plaintiff’s director on September 2, 2013, and was appointed as a middle-income executive partner (representative) established by the Plaintiff by investing 100% around October 2013.

C) On December 25, 2013, the Plaintiff sent the Intervenor 3 and the Intervenor 2, who worked in ○○○○ Headquarters △△△△△△, to a foreign main source of revenue from abroad on January 1, 2014, on which January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff sent the Intervenor 2, who was employed in △△△△△△△△△△△△△, to a foreign main source of revenue from abroad. The said Intervenor served in the middle of the time.

D) On June 16, 2014, Nonparty 1: (a) granted permission to convene the Plaintiff’s temporary general meeting for the purpose of meeting to dismiss Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 and appoint two directors, and (b) held a temporary general meeting on July 25, 2015, upon receiving a decision from the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch to the effect that “the above provisional general meeting of shareholders is Nonparty 1; and (c) held a temporary general meeting of shareholders on July 25, 2015; (d) the above provisional general meeting of shareholders dismissed Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3; and (d) the appointment of Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5’s director Nonparty 96.605% of the total number of issued stocks with the consent of 500,000, 96.605% of the total number of issued stocks; and (d) the meeting of the board of directors held was decided to appoint Nonparty 1 as the representative director. On July 29, 2014.

E) On August 11, 2014, Nonparty 1 held a board of directors and resolved to dismiss Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 as a heavy executive partner. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff was notified Nonparty 2 of the dismissal of Nonparty 3 from the heavy executive partner, Nonparty 3 from the heavy executive partner, and the appointment of Nonparty 4 as a heavy executive partner and Nonparty 20 to the company. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff notified Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 of the dismissal and appointment of a heavy executive partner.

F) On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s team leader Nonparty 18 and the Nonparty 20, a vice-party 18, a vice-party 20, a vice-party 10, who visited the multiple offices of the Plaintiff’s employees, who worked as the presiding official, requested the Plaintiff’s employees Nonparty 10 to deliver the documents related to the corporation and the seal imprint. However, Nonparty 10 was ordered by Nonparty 2 to not provide the corporation’s documents and the seal imprint without his approval.

G) On August 27, 2014, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 20 visited a middle-water office to receive documents related to the corporation and seal imprint, and the number of advisers Nonparty 21 reported Nonparty 4, etc. to China’s public domain without permission and prevented the Intervenor from leaving the said office until the draft was made. Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 20 demanded that the Intervenor be allowed to leave the office in that process. However, the Intervenor 3 did not answer or act against it.

H) On August 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of change of the executive partner of a water company in China’s Seosung-gu Office for Administrative Management in the Chinese Island, which was dismissed. After which, on June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the heavy number of executive officers and Nonparty 2, who were in the Chinese Island Island, and Nonparty 2. On August 29, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment that “The above court rendered a judgment that: “The heavy number and Nonparty 2,” on August 29, 2016, shall be limited to the number of statutory representatives within 15 days from the date this judgment becomes effective, pursuant to the resolution of the number of shareholders issued by the Plaintiff on August 11, 2014; Nonparty 2, the legal representative appointed by the Plaintiff within 15 days from the date this judgment becomes effective, shall provide all of the evidence, seal impression, and business data to Nonparty 4, the legal representative appointed by the Plaintiff.”

I) On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff appointed Nonparty 4 as the Plaintiff’s representative director, following a resolution of the board of directors.

차) 원고는 2015. 3. 23. 일시 귀국한 참가인 2에게 2015. 3. 24. ♡♡사무소로 방문하라는 내용의 문자메시지를 보냈고, 참가인 2는 이를 확인하고도 아무런 응답을 하지 아니하였다.

카) 원고는 2015. 4. 6. 및 2015. 4. 7. 일시 귀국한 참가인 3에게 회사로 연락을 주고 2015. 4. 7. ♡♡사무소로 방문하라는 내용의 문자메시지를 보냈으나, 참가인 3은 이를 확인하고도 아무런 응답을 하지 아니하였다.

(l) Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 8, etc. visited Nonparty 4, the head of the Plaintiff, from April 27, 2015 to May 4, 2015, in order to register the change of a middle executive partner and to take over business affairs. Nonparty 2 and his/her employees entered the middle office on April 30, 2015, and left Nonparty 8’s entrance outside the entrance. Nonparty 8 was dispatched from the Chinese official proposal to a middle office for about two hours, and Nonparty 8 was able to take out the office at that time.

파) 원고는 2015. 4. 29. 참가인 3, 참가인 2에게 2015. 4. 29.부로 ☆☆본부 ♤♤♤♤팀으로 이동발령 및 ♡♡사무소 소회의실로 대기발령을 하면서 2015. 5. 13.까지 위 참가인들의 후임자로 인사발령된 소외 22, 소외 23에게 업무인수인계 후 발령부서로 출근할 것을 명하였다(이하 ‘이 사건 복귀명령’이라 한다). 원고는 2015. 5. 12. 참가인 2에 대하여 ○○본부 △△□□소(이하 ‘△△□□소’라고만 한다)로 이동발령을 하고 2015. 5. 18.부터 △△□□소로 출근할 것을 명하였다.

하) 참가인 3이 2015. 5. 13. ♡♡사무소 소회의실로 출근하지 아니하자 원고의 ◁◁◁◁팀 과장 소외 24는 같은 날 참가인 3에게 인사발령에 따른 출근이 이루어지지 아니하였음을 알리면서 조속히 출근할 것을 요청하고 특별한 사유 없이 출근하지 않을 경우 결근으로 처리되며 이로 인한 불이익이 있을 수 있다는 취지의 이메일을 보냈다. 원고는 2015. 5. 20. 참가인 3이 그때까지 출근을 하지 아니하자 제2-1 내지 2-3징계사유를 이유로 2015. 5. 27. 인사위원회가 개최되니 그 전까지 진술서 등을 제출하거나 인사위원회에 출석하라고 통지하였다. 원고는 2015. 5. 27. 참가인 3이 인사위원회에 출석하지 아니하자 재차 위와 같은 내용으로 2015. 6. 8. 개최되는 인사위원회에 출석하여 소명할 것을 통보하였다. 원고는 2015. 6. 8. 참가인 3이 불출석한 가운데 인사위원회를 개최하여 제2-1 내지 2-3징계사유를 해고사유로 하여 2015. 7. 8.부로 참가인 3을 해고하기로 의결하고, 참가인 3에게 해고통지서를 우편으로 송부하였다.

(o) On May 18, 2015, the Intervenor 2 sent 2 e-mail to the head of △△△△△△ Office and 20. The 2nd 5th e-mail to the Intervenor’s 20th 6th 1st 6th 6th 201, stating that “The 2nd 2nd 5th 6th 6th 2nd 1st 6th 1st 6th 6th 206th 1st 206th 6th 206th 206th 206th 206th 206th 206th 1st 206th 26th 206th 206th 26th 206th 206th 206th 206th 3th 206th 206th 206th 26th 206th 3th 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's statements and images, Eul's evidence of No. 1 through 26, 39, 57, 58, 64, 65, Eul's evidence of No. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence of No. 1 (including the number of pages), and the purport of whole pleadings

2) Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist

A) As to the 2-1 disciplinary ground of the Intervenor 3, and the 3-1 disciplinary ground of the Intervenor 2

First, we examine whether the instant order of return to the Intervenor 3 and the Intervenor 2 is a legitimate personnel order.

A disposition of change of occupation or transfer to a worker may be disadvantageously imposed on the worker in that it brings about changes to the type, content, place, etc. of work that the worker should provide. However, in principle, since it belongs to the authority of the employer who is the personnel management authority, considerable discretion shall be recognized within the necessary scope of business. Barring any special circumstance, such as in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act prohibiting the worker from being dismissed, temporarily dismissed, suspended from office, reduced wages, and other disciplinary action without justifiable grounds, it shall not be deemed null and void. Whether the disposition of change of occupation, etc. falls within the legitimate scope of personnel rights shall be determined by comparing and comparing the necessity of the work of the relevant change of occupation, etc. and the disadvantage of the worker in his/her daily life due to the change of his/her right, such as consultation, etc. with the trade union to which the worker belongs (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da46969, Oct. 29, 2015, etc.).

위 인정사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 취업규칙 제43조에 의하면 원고는 업무형편상 필요한 경우에는 이동을 명할 수 있고, 명을 받은 사원은 발령일로부터 14일 이내에 신근무지로 부임하여야 한다고 규정하고 있고, 주재원규칙 제8조 제4항 및 제11조 제3항에 의하면 주재원은 회사의 직무 및 복무와 관련된 명령 및 지시사항을 성실히 이행하고 따라야 하며, 원고의 귀국명령 시 소정기일 내에 귀국하여야 하고, 주재원이 회사의 귀임명령을 받았을 때에는 업무인계 종료 후 즉시 귀임하여야 한다고 규정하고 있는 점, ② 이 사건 복귀명령은 취업규칙 제43조가 정하는 바에 따른 최대한의 부임 기간을 부여한 것인 점, ③ 주재원규칙 제11조 제3항은 주재원이 귀임명령을 받은 경우 업무인계 종료 후 즉시 귀임하여야 하는 의무를 규정한 것에 불과하고, 주재원규칙 제6조가 교체 근무 주재원으로 선발된 주재원의 출국예정일을 전임자의 귀임 예정일 30일 전으로 한다고 규정하고 있는 것은 귀임발령일과 귀임예정일 사이에 위와 같이 14일의 간격이 있음을 고려하여 전임자와 후임자 사이의 인수인계 절차가 적정하게 이루어질 수 있도록 하는데 그 취지가 있을 뿐, ‘전임 주재원에게’ 30일간의 업무 인수인계 기간을 보장하는 취지는 아닌 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 원고는 중수의 100% 주주로서 원고의 이사회 결의에 따라 중수의 집행동사를 소외 2에서 소외 4로 변경하였음에도 불구하고 소외 2 등이 집행동사 변경등기절차의 이행을 거부하면서 중수를 불법적으로 장악하고 있는 상황을 해결하고 중수에 대한 지배를 회복하기 위하여 중수에 파견한 주재원의 인적 구성을 변경할 업무상 필요성이 있다고 보이는 점, ⑤ 원고의 해외주재원은 통상적으로 최장 3년의 근무기간의 범위에서 파견되므로 다시 국내의 사업장으로 복귀할 것이 예정되어 있으므로, 이 사건 복귀명령에 따라 참가인 3, 참가인 2에게 특별한 생활상 불이익이 발생할 것이라는 사정이 보이지 아니하는 점, ⑥ 그 밖에 참가인 3, 참가인 2가 중국에서 가족과 함께 생활하는 등의 사유로 이 사건 복귀명령에 의하여 주재원 근무가 계속될 것을 신뢰하여 형성한 생활의 근거를 상실하게 되는 등의 상당한 생활상 불이익이 발생할 것이라고 볼 만한 아무런 자료가 없는 점, ⑦ 원고는 이 사건 복귀명령에 앞서 2015. 3. 23. 일시 귀국한 참가인 2에게, 2015. 4. 6. 및 2015. 4. 7. 일시 귀국한 참가인 3에게 각 회사로 연락할 것과 ♡♡사무소로 방문하라는 취지의 문자메시지를 보냈음에도 위 참가인들은 이에 대하여 아무런 응답을 하지 아니한 점에 비추어 원고가 이 사건 복귀명령에 앞서 참가인 3, 참가인 2와 사이에 이 사건 복귀명령에 관한 협의를 하기가 여의치 아니하였던 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 복귀명령은 원고의 소속 근로자에 대한 인사권 범위 내에 있는 것으로서 정당한 것으로 보이고, 원고가 참가인 3, 참가인 2와 협의 절차를 거치지 못하였다는 사정만으로 이 사건 복귀명령이 인사재량권을 남용한 것으로서 무효라고 볼 수 없다.

The Intervenor 3 and the Intervenor 2 did not comply with the pertinent order of return, and the Intervenor 3 did not appear without any justifiable reason for 22 days from June 3, 2015, when the Intervenor 3 decided to take disciplinary action from May 13, 2015 to June 8, 2015 under the instant order of return, and the Intervenor 2 was absent without any reason for 22 days from June 3, 2015, when the Intervenor 2 decided to take disciplinary action from May 18, 2015, the issuing date of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and the date of the last attendance presented by the Plaintiff, without any reason presented to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 3, the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 2, and the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 2 are recognized as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to Article 53(2) and (3) of the Rules of Employment.

B) As to the ground for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 3, the ground for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 2, and the ground for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 2

The facts that Nonparty 2 and the service employees employed by Nonparty 2 entered the middle water office on April 30, 2015 and left Nonparty 8 to the middle water office, leaving Nonparty 8 in the office, and the lock out for about two hours out of the office entrance was not available from Nonparty 8, as seen earlier. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that Nonparty 3 and the Intervenor 2 actively participated in the above office or shared part of the action, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the grounds for the second-2 disciplinary action against the Intervenor 3 and the grounds for the third-2 disciplinary action against the Intervenor 2 against the Intervenor 3 are not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

C) As to the ground for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 3

On August 27, 2014, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 20 visited a heavy-water office to receive documents related to the corporation and seal imprint books. On several occasions, Nonparty 21 reported Nonparty 4, etc. to China’s official territory without permission, and prevented Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 20 from leaving the said office until the draft was made. Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 20 demanded that the Intervenor be allowed to leave the office in the process. However, the Intervenor 3 did not respond or act against it.

However, the above facts and evidence No. 4 were revealed by considering the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 21, a senior officer at the time, who was working in accordance with the instructions given by Nonparty 2 and 21, etc., who was a senior officer at the time, was obligated to follow the instructions given by Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 20, who was legally appointed as a senior officer, even though there was a dispute over the validity of the change of the executive officer, which led to Nonparty 2, Nonparty 21, etc., and Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 20, etc., who were newly appointed against the will of the existing superior, it appears that it was difficult for the Intervenor to actively comply with the instructions given by Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 20, etc., and ② Nonparty 3 did not actively respond to the demand of Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 20 to leave the office, and Nonparty 21, who did not actively participate in or punish Nonparty 21 and Nonparty 21, who did not actively participate in the above action.

Therefore, the grounds for disciplinary action against the intervenor 3 are not recognized as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action.

3) Whether disciplinary action is appropriate

The dismissal of workers is justified in cases where there are grounds for an employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued under the generally accepted social norms. Whether the employee’s employment relationship with the relevant employee has reached the extent that the employee is unable to continue, shall comprehensively examine various circumstances, such as the purpose and nature of the relevant employer’s business, the conditions of the relevant employee’s workplace, the status and details of the relevant employee’s duties, motive and background of the act of misconduct, influence on the company’s business order, such as the risk of disturbing the company’s deceptive scheme, and the previous employer’s attitude of work. In addition, if there are several kinds of suspicions of disciplinary action against the relevant employee, the dismissal shall not be determined with only one or some grounds, but shall be determined in light of the overall reasons. Moreover, if there are sufficient grounds for disciplinary action to recognize the validity of the relevant disciplinary action only with some other grounds recognized, it shall not be unlawful even if the relevant disciplinary action is maintained (see, e.g.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts, the remaining grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 3, excluding the grounds for disciplinary action 2-1 against the Intervenor 3 and the grounds for disciplinary action 3-1 against the Intervenor 2, are not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action, but the above grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor 2, and it is sufficient to recognize the validity of disciplinary action against the above Intervenor 3 on the ground that the above grounds for disciplinary action are responsible for the above Intervenor to the extent that it is impossible to continue the

A) The Intervenor 3 and the Intervenor 2 did not comply with the Plaintiff’s legitimate order to return to the instant case without explaining the reasons to the Plaintiff or attending the personnel committee, or failing to vindicate it, by the date of each disciplinary measure. Despite the repeated Plaintiff’s order to attend work and notice of attendance at the personnel committee, the Intervenor 3 and the Intervenor 2 did not appear at the work place issued without permission without any contact or explanation to the Plaintiff.

B) The mere fact that the intervenor 2 expressed reasons for non-compliance with the personnel order of this case is sending e-mail to the head of △△△ Factory and its employees to the effect that he will go through the time to take over and take over the shares in the middle water and that he will go to the △△△△△△△△△△△△. This is not against the Plaintiff’s personnel affairs team, but against the Plaintiff’s personnel affairs team, and whether to allow the intermediary 2 to take over and take over the shares in a reasonable manner or to have the intervenor 2 carry out the affairs prior to the personnel transfer is within the scope of the Plaintiff’s right to direct labor, and therefore, the circumstance that the intervenor 2 arbitrarily takes over and takes over the shares within the scope of the Plaintiff’s right to direct labor, such as the instant order of return, cannot be a justifiable reason for not complying

C) According to Article 53(2) of the Rules of Employment, if an intervenor is absent from work without permission for at least five days, it may be a ground for dismissal. The number of days during which the intervenor 3 and the intervenor 2 were absent from work without permission exceeds the above five days (which does not exempt the intervenor 3 and the intervenor 2 from the duty to attend work on the ground that the disciplinary procedure began).

D) Even if the Intervenor 3 and the Intervenor 2 were to have a doubt about the legitimacy of the instant order, the absence for a long time without any declaration of intent or explanation of the reason therefor lacks reasonableness as a means of a claim against the instant order.

E) An intervenor 3 and an intervenor 2 refused to perform the duty to provide labor for a considerable period of time in accordance with the employer’s direction. It seems difficult to expect the said Intervenor to perform the duty to provide labor in a normal manner.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the plaintiff's dismissal of disciplinary action against the intervenors is justified, the decision of the retrial of this case which held that disciplinary action against the intervenors constitutes unfair dismissal is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge)

It is impossible to sign and seal due to yellow support;