2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a public corporation that employs 38 full-time workers and engages in construction and real estate business. The Plaintiff joined the Intervenor on January 9, 199 and has been in charge of personnel affairs and planning as administrative Grade 4 employees.

B. On February 16, 2006, the Intervenor held a personnel committee and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff, and on February 20, 2006, dismissed the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

C. On February 28, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the dismissal of this case with the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2006da29, respectively. On April 28, 2006, the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the dismissal of this case cannot be deemed unfair.

D. Accordingly, on June 2, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as of 2006 No. 520, respectively. On November 2, 2006, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision of reexamination to dismiss the Plaintiff’s above application for reexamination on the same ground as the above decision of dismissal on November 2, 2006 (hereinafter “instant decision of reexamination”).

【Unsatisfy-founded facts, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4】 Each entry

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The dismissal of this case was not only a disciplinary cause but also a disciplinary action for which the statute of limitations has already expired, and thus constitutes unfair dismissal. Therefore, the decision of reexamination of this case, which did not recognize it as unfair, was unlawful (the plaintiff argued that there was a defect in the composition of the personnel committee which decided the dismissal of this case, but the above assertion was withdrawn on the date of pleading of this case).

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) From October 200, the intervenor conducted the business of constructing and selling modern Coru apartment units on seven lots, including 745-1, Dansan-gu, Jeonju-si, 2000. At the time, the head of the planning and budget division, who was in charge of the intervenor's business of selling apartment units, ordered the plaintiff, who was a public relations employee belonging to the planning and budget team at the time of ordering printing promotional materials on the above apartment units in January 2001, who was a staff member of the planning and budget team at the time of ordering printing materials on the above apartment units.

(2) Around that time, the Plaintiff recommended Nonparty 3, a printing company, to Nonparty 1 (administrative Grade III), who was the head of the Intervenor’s planning and budget team at the time of the recommendation. From January 2001 to February 2002, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 63 million from Nonparty 3, etc., in total, on 12 occasions from January 2001 to February 200, and delivered it to Nonparty 1. Meanwhile, Nonparty 4 (Administrative Grade IV) and Nonparty 5 (Administrative Grade V), an employee of the Intervenor, participated in the delivery of money and valuables on one occasion (Nonindicted 5,00,000 won) or two occasions (Nonindicted 5, 100,000 won).

(3) On January 2005, the Intervenor was subject to search and seizure from the former main prosecutor’s office with respect to Nonparty 1 and 2’s act of corruption, such as acceptance of money and valuables, and the relevant persons were investigated by the prosecution, and the Plaintiff was also subject to investigation by the prosecution as a witness at that time. Meanwhile, the above investigation was reported to the general public through the local media such as newspapers and broadcasting at that time.

(4) On June 23, 2005, Jeonju District Court Decision 2005Ma57, 2005Ma173 (Joint), 2005MaMa2000 (Joint), etc., the crime of taking property in breach of trust due to the receipt of money and valuables was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, Nonparty 2 was sentenced to imprisonment for two years, and Nonparty 1 was sentenced to imprisonment for two years in August, 2006, respectively. On January 17, 2006, the appellate court against the above judgment was sentenced to the same crime in the same case in the same court No. 2005No994, which is the appellate court, the same offense, Nonparty 2 was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, and Nonparty 1 was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal, respectively.

(5) On February 8, 2006, the author notified that he/she would hold a personnel committee for disciplinary action against the persons related to the above corruption including the plaintiff on the 16th of the same month. On February 16, 2006, the above personnel committee decided to dismiss the non-party 2, dismiss the non-party 1 and the plaintiff, dismiss the non-party 4, dismiss the non-party 1 and the non-party 4, reduce their salary 1 months, and take a disciplinary action against the non-party 5 for two months of salary reduction.

(6) The Intervenor’s relevant provisions are as follows.

【Provisions of Service】

Article 8 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) No employee shall commit any act detrimental to the honor and dignity of the Corporation, regardless of whether he/she performs his/her duties or not.

Article 11 (Duty of Integrity) No employee shall receive any reward, donation, or entertainment in connection with his/her duties.

【Personnel Regulations】

Article 43 (Principles of Disciplinary Action) If an employee falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he shall be subject to disciplinary action, and the decision of disciplinary action shall be based on the result of a disciplinary decision made by

2. Where he has committed an act detrimental to the honor and dignity of the Corporation; and

Article 44 (Categories of Disciplinary Action) Types of disciplinary action shall be classified into heavy disciplinary action, removal, suspension from office, and minor disciplinary action, salary reduction which is minor disciplinary action, and reprimand.

Article 46-2 (Relation with Other Institutions)

(1) With respect to a case under investigation by the Board of Audit and Inspection, Jeollabuk-do or any other competent agency, no disciplinary decision such as a request for disciplinary decision shall proceed from the date of commencing such investigation (No. 69 of April 17, 2003).

(2) With respect to a case under investigation by a public prosecutor, police or other criminal investigation agency, no disciplinary decision shall be requested or proceeded from the date of notification of the beginning of an investigation (it shall be April 17, 2003).

Article 46-3 (Prescription of Disciplinary Causes)

(1) No resolution on a disciplinary action shall be requested at the expiration of two years (three years in the case of giving and receiving any money, goods, and entertainment, embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds) from the date on which the cause of the disciplinary action occurs (three years in the case of misappropriation and misappropriation of public funds).

(2) If the period as referred to in paragraph (1) expires or the remaining period thereof is less than one month because it was impossible to proceed the disciplinary procedure under Article 46-2, the period as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be terminated at the expiration of one month from the date of notification of the closure of an investigation or investigation under Article 46-2 ( April 17, 2003).

【Enforcement Regulations of the Personnel Regulations】

[Attachment 9] Criteria for Disciplinary Action

본문내 포함된 표 비위의 유형＼비위도 및 과실 비위의 도가 중하고 고의성이 있는 경우 비위의 도가 중하고 중과실이거나 비위의 도가 경하고 고의가 있는 경우 비위의 도가 중하고 경과실이거나 비위의 도가 경하고 중과실인 경우 비위의 도가 경하고 경과실인 경우 6. 청렴의무 위반 파면 해임 감봉 감봉, 견책 7. 품위유지의무 위반 파면, 해임 정직 감봉 경고, 주의, 견책

[Ground of recognition] 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6-1, 2, 7-1 through 3 (3) of the evidence of 3-1, 5, 7-1 through 3 (3) of the evidence of 8-1, 9-1 through 4, 10-1 through 3, 11 of the evidence of 12-1 through 4, 20-1, 2, 1 of the evidence of 12-20, 2-1 through 3, 4-1 through 6 of the evidence of 9-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings of the evidence of 9-1 through 3

(c) Markets:

(1) Disciplinary reasons against the Plaintiff

As seen earlier, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff did not violate the duty of integrity because the plaintiff delivered money to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, thereby helping the plaintiff to receive the property in breach of trust and thereby impairing the intervenor's honor and dignity violates the duty of dignity maintenance and the duty of integrity (the plaintiff did not directly deliver the property and did not have any position to decide on the payment or convenience related to the business of the department or status at the time of the above misconduct. However, according to the above facts, the plaintiff intentionally participated in the violation of the duty of integrity in relation to the plaintiff's performance of duties, and the duty of integrity borne by the intervenor's employee does not necessarily be premised on the provision of consideration or convenience. In light of these circumstances, the above circumstances of the plaintiff's argument do not affect the judgment above), and the plaintiff has grounds for disciplinary action stipulated in Articles 8 and 11 of the Service Regulations.

(2) Whether the statute of limitations has expired

The purpose of the statute of limitations in the collective agreement, etc. is that the employer's exercise of the right of disciplinary action is against trust to a worker who is expected not to exercise the right of disciplinary action for a certain period of time after the act of misconduct, and that there is almost no need to take disciplinary action against a worker when the period of time has elapsed without any new act of misconduct after the act of misconduct. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the legitimate trust of the worker was formed, and there are special circumstances to deem that there is no need to take disciplinary action even after the act of misconduct, it is reasonable to deem that the statute of limitations does not run or the period of disciplinary action is suspended.

With respect to the instant case, it is reasonable to view that the part of the Plaintiff’s misconduct, first of all, as to the Intervenor’s reputation and dignity, was damaged by the prosecution investigation against the Intervenor by reporting it to the press around January 2005. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the period of prescription for disciplinary action against the Intervenor has not expired at the time of dismissal within 2 years thereafter.

Next, since the part of the plaintiff's act of delivering money and valuables continues until February 2002, the disciplinary action against the plaintiff's 2's 1 disciplinary action shall expire on February 2004 or around February 2005 in principle pursuant to Article 46-3 (1) of the Personnel Management Rules. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the entire purport of pleading are continuously concealed, i.e., ① the fact of receiving money and valuables by the non-party 1 and 2, and the fact of delivering money and valuables by the plaintiff were known after the prosecutor's investigation was commenced on January 2005, ② the plaintiff's act of delivering money and valuables is closely related to the non-party 1 and 2's act of receiving money and valuables, and therefore it seems that it was inappropriate or difficult for the plaintiff to proceed with the disciplinary action against the plaintiff at the time of the above disciplinary action against the non-party 1 and 2, ③ the plaintiff's 2's act of receiving money and valuables from the prosecutor's office without being notified of disciplinary action against the plaintiff's disciplinary action.

(3) Whether a disciplinary decision is appropriate

Furthermore, the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the above facts and the entire argument, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s act of delivering money and valuables, (i) the amount of the money and valuables is not only a large amount of the money subject thereto but also repeated over a period of one year; (ii) the Plaintiff directly recommended printing companies to provide money and valuables to their employees; and (iii) the Plaintiff stated to the effect that at the time of prosecutorial investigation, it would have proposed to receive money and valuables from printing companies that are not a certified judicial scrivener, etc.; (iv) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has a duty to obey his official instructions; (v) the Plaintiff provided other employees with an opportunity to undergo the foregoing misconduct; and (v) the suspicion of the crime committed by the Plaintiff through the above misconduct was reported to the press; and (vi) the Intervenor’s position, power, and integrity were particularly required to perform his duties as a public corporation; and (v) the Plaintiff’s decision on the fact that there was no further serious reason for continuing labor relations by social norms, including the Plaintiff’s first recommendation and dismissal of Nonparty 1’s money and valuables.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the dismissal of this case is justified, and there is no error in the decision of reexamination of this case which did not recognize the dismissal of this case as unfair dismissal, as alleged by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the retrial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Central Public-Private Partnership (Presiding Judge) Dozers