2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a corporation in charge of all affairs related to the health insurance (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) under the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “Act”). The Plaintiff is a person dismissed from office by Defendant Corporation on October 29, 2009, when serving as Grade III in the Grade III in the Daejeon Deputy Administrative Office.

B. On July 17, 2009 and July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff posted the following articles on the free bulletin board of internal communications networks, which can be seen as all employees of Defendant Corporation, (hereinafter “each of the instant bulletin boards”).

◎ 2009. 7. 17.자 게시글

“No. : The notice of a plan to inspect the actual state of overtime and holiday work is available for public perusal.

(b)(t).

The special allowances, starting from the current wage preservation function of the public corporation, would be applied only to the class separation of class, and would be applied only to class 3 or below, and would be 6-7 years.Therefore, whether the special allowances are currently a preservation allowance or a supplementary allowance of basic salary can be seen as a remuneration system of the gap exceeding one million won between class 1 and class 6.

It is intended to put the class 3 or lower class of the public officials into a preliminary bank while carrying out the case of unfair receipt of part of the public officials as the special allowances focused on the press, etc. for more than 2-3 years.

이러한 문서 생산자가 현상을 모른 저능아들인지 아니면 도둑질도 눈치껏 알아서 하라는 온정적 신호인지 나는 알쏭달쏭하다.

After the special allowances of class 1-2 have been changed to the "management allowances", they would like to ask a finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite.

Unless there is a deep concern about the historical consideration of wage remuneration and spite spite due to the leakage of gue that is not the basis of wage theory.

E.L. E. H./

◎ 2009. 7. 21.자 게시글

“No. : Any transfer stories

(b)(t).

The latter director of the Human Resources Management Office was deposited at the branch office only for 4 months.

After promotion at the regional headquarters in 2007, he was employed by the head of the headquarters for several months and was employed by the head of the manpower management office for four months from the Seoul Gangnam-gu branch.

The average term of office of the head of the department shall not be less than one year, but not more than four months, and it is difficult to understand this.

However, it is not clear that finitely contributed to the development of the NHIS, which is a public enterprise of the running water of the Republic of Korea, is not a self-government system, and it is not clear that finitely, finitely, contributed to the development of the NHIS, but it is not easy to say that finitely, after integration on July 200, finite special finites or finites that the NHIS moved with free materials, and that finites much much finite than any person (including overseas training, etc.).

It is clear that it is not a personal complaint or distribution, and it is difficult to verify that it is not an attack against people, and it is not an attack against people, but an attack against the relative deprivation of people by 11,000 people by 10,000 people of this Corporation, or it is difficult to verify whether there is a problem of frequent transfer of people or not.

(b) (hereinafter referred to as the "................".

C. On October 29, 2009, Defendant Corporation made a disposition to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity as an employee on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff did not accept a document produced by legitimate title and violated the employee’s “compliance with regulations and the duty of good faith; (b) did not appear at the Disciplinary Committee due to drinking conditions; and (c) did not comply with the duty to maintain dignity as an employee (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”); and (d) took a measure to dismiss the Plaintiff on October 29, 2009 on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity as an employee.

D. The personnel regulations of Defendant Corporation concerning the instant dismissal are as follows.

Article 38 (Duties of Staff Members)

(1) Employees shall observe the regulations of the GEPS, and perform their duties faithfully.

(4) No employee shall do any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is on or outside his/her duties.

Article 73 (Grounds for Discipline) If an employee falls under any of the following subparagraphs, a resolution on disciplinary action shall be requested, and a disciplinary action shall be taken according to the result of the said resolution:

1. When he has violated any of the obligations of an employee provided for in this Regulation;

A. The Plaintiff prepared each of the instant comments, or the attendance and statement of the Disciplinary Committee in a drinking state do not violate the duty to maintain the dignity of employees. Even if the aforementioned acts constitute grounds for disciplinary action, it is unreasonable to deem that such disciplinary action is too unreasonable.

B. Therefore, since the disposition of dismissal in this case is null and void, the defendant is at the same time obligated to claim confirmation of invalidity and pay 5,595,888 won, which is the average monthly salary from October 29, 2009, which is the date of dismissal, to the date of returning the plaintiff to the original state, and delay damages therefor.

3. Determination

A. First, the Plaintiff’s writing of each of the instant notices constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.

The following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 12 and the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., ① the plaintiff, as an employee of the defendant Corporation, should raise an objection in accordance with the due process set by the defendant Corporation. However, in the notice on July 17, 2009, "whether the document producer is a fluent baby," and "Is the historical review of wage remuneration without any deep concern and the fact that the fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent, E, E, E, without any ground. ② The plaintiff criticizes the policy of the defendant Corporation without any ground after using the indecent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent flud f.

B. Next, we examine the argument that a disciplinary decision is unfair.

Dismissal shall be justified in cases where there are grounds for an employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employee’s employment relationship with the employee should be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer’s business, the conditions of the workplace, the status and details of the employee’s duties, the motive and background of the act of misconduct, the impact on the company’s business order such as the risk of disturbing the corporate deceptive order, and the previous attitude of work (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8018, Jul. 8, 2003, etc.).

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 10-1 and Eul evidence 11, i.e., the plaintiff slandered the payment policy of the defendant Corporation by using indecent expressions as seen earlier despite the position of the senior executive officers, and without any specific grounds. It is reasonable to deem such act as an act of impairing the order of deceptive scheme of the defendant Corporation. It is reasonable to view that the above act is a dangerous act that disturbs the order of deceptive scheme of the defendant Corporation. ② The plaintiff cannot be viewed as having good faith by attending the disciplinary procedure prescribed by the personnel regulations of the defendant Corporation on September 30, 200, and answers questions of the disciplinary committee members. ③ The plaintiff cannot be viewed as having violated his duty of care due to the injury to dignity of the defendant Corporation on May 21, 1993; ③ The plaintiff's dismissal of the defendant corporation on April 17, 1996; and the plaintiff's dismissal of the defendant corporation on March 24, 200.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)