서울 ■■■

Attorney omitted

Seoul

Representative Director 1

Omission

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal as to the plaintiff's claim to nullify the removal from position continues to maintain the status as an employee, but if the removal from position loses its validity, there is no benefit to seek nullification of the removal from position, barring special circumstances such as restriction on promotion and promotion according to personnel regulations, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da10743, Sep. 10, 1993; 2006Da33999, Dec. 28, 2007, etc.).

The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, found that the Defendant’s dismissal from his position against the Plaintiff was 206.

3. The defendant was released from his position on 13. 13. The defendant's personnel management rules only stipulate that "the person who is released from his position shall be excluded from his position," but cannot be found that there is a restriction on promotion or promotion even by the removal from position whose effect has been invalidated. The plaintiff's circumstance that the plaintiff's dismissal from his position has no choice but to affect the plaintiff's promotion is merely merely a disadvantage, and the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the removal from his position which has already been invalidated because it does not have any legal disadvantage.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation as alleged in the grounds of

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the removal from position of this case, since the plaintiff has an adverse effect on the payment of performance bonus, in accordance with the provision that even though the removal from position of this case was made in the final appeal and the removal from position became null and void, the plaintiff's work attitude of the researcher (the compliance with the good faith and rule) under Article 4 (3) of the defendant's performance prohibition standard may not be paid in whole or in part to the "person who has committed an act detrimental to the reputation and dignity of the researcher", even after the removal from position of this case had become null and void. However, unless there is a provision that connects the payment of performance bonus to the power that he was released from position in accordance with the above performance prohibition standard, it cannot be deemed that there

The argument in the grounds of appeal is without merit. The Supreme Court decision that the plaintiff is liable to pay is not appropriate to apply the case to this case, because the case is different.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the claim for unpaid benefits

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, such as that the defendant's president, from the Korea Broadcasting System (KBS) to December 23, 2005, the "S program" program (theme: the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to refrain from contributing to the above broadcast and did not explicitly order that the plaintiff refrain from contributing the above broadcast. Although the plaintiff did not receive any explicit instruction from the defendant that prohibit the above broadcast, the court below determined that the defendant's personnel management regulations can be subject to removal from position in an extremely unfaithful manner due to dismissal from position related to external activities because it is extremely difficult for the defendant's personnel management regulations to criticize the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's dismissal from position can be acknowledged as invalid for the reason that the plaintiff's dismissal from position could not be acknowledged as a "unfaithly unfaithful person due to dismissal from position related to work attitude."

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to removal from position or in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the claim for unpaid incentives, the Defendant’s external activities, including the employee’s guidelines for external activities, are conducted under the approval of the president. The approval and non-approval of the president is limited to the comprehensive personnel authority exercised by the president in connection with the external activities of the researcher, and considerable discretion is recognized within the scope necessary for business. Thus, the Defendant’s violation of the above internal rules and the director’s instructions and the broadcast’s non-approval authority cannot be deemed unlawful for the Plaintiff to take measures of prohibiting external activities for one year against the Plaintiff by exercising the above approval and non-approval authority.

Although the reasoning of the judgment below on this part is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Kim Nung-hwan

Justices Min Il-young