부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The grounds alleged in the trial while the plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the grounds alleged in the judgment of the court of first instance.
Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the supplement of the following judgment. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Supplementary judgment
A. In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted in the trial and the first instance court, the intervenor is recognized as having been in the position of providing labor to the plaintiff who is the employer and receiving remuneration in a subordinate relationship, even though the intervenor is classified as the head of the Plaintiff’s direct jurisdiction division along with the officers in the articles of incorporation.
(b) If the contents of the rules of employment, which provide for the grounds for disciplinary action that may be dismissed, are partly different from each other, it is problematic that the rules of employment should be applied, but in such a case, more favorable
(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to disciplinary dismissal under Article 16(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to disciplinary dismissal under Article 18(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da25889 delivered on October 25, 1994). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the entire purport of pleadings presented at the trial and the first instance court in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor.