(b) Whether a disciplinary action has the validity of a disciplinary action without going through such procedures, if there is no provision ordering the disciplinary person to be notified in advance or to be given an opportunity to defend himself/herself in disciplinary proceedings such as the collective agreement

C. The purport of the collective agreement of the transportation company which provides that “no personnel action shall be taken only against a person who has been indicted for an accident” and whether the case constitutes a case where a serious accident of death occurred and a summary indictment is not taken (negative)

B. Unless otherwise provided in the company’s collective agreement or rules of employment that orders the disciplinary person to be notified in advance or to provide an opportunity to defend himself/herself, the company’s disciplinary action shall not be deemed null and void even if it did not undergo such procedures in the company’s disciplinary procedure

C. In a collective agreement of the transportation company, the phrase “it is prohibited from taking personnel measures only for a person who has been convicted of an accident” is merely a mere purport of excluding a person subject to personnel measures in a case where a minor accident is brought and a summary indictment is filed. It does not constitute a case where a serious death accident is not brought and a summary indictment is not brought. It does not change on the ground that it was before a decision on whether to prosecute was made at the time of dismissal.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 28 (2) of the theory of a collective agreement provides that "the company shall notify the union members of the personnel decision, taking into account the union's opinion as to new employment, dismissal, temporary retirement, or reward and punishment within seven days," and the records show that the effect of the personnel decision is not affected because it is merely for the purpose of taking the union's opinion as a reference material in the personnel decision, unlike the case of deciding upon consultation with the union participating in the above opinion, unlike the case of deciding upon the above opinion as reference material in consultation with the union. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the dismissal in this case does not constitute invalidation even if the opinion of the union was not considered in the dismissal in this regard,

2. As to the above ground of appeal No. 1 (b)

According to the records, the disciplinary committee of the defendant company held on June 9, 1989 recognized the fact that the disciplinary committee decided the disciplinary action of the plaintiff as a result of secret voting, such as the situation of the accident in this case, degree of negligence on the part of the victim, status of the father of the victim, degree of damage, necessity of disciplinary action, etc. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the disciplinary action of the plaintiff was taken as a result of the accident without making a substantive disciplinary procedure like theory. In addition, unless there is any provision ordering the disciplinary action in the collective agreement, rules of employment, etc. of the defendant company to notify the disciplinary person in advance or give an opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary action against the plaintiff, even though the defendant did not go through such procedure in the disciplinary procedure against the plaintiff, the disciplinary action shall not be deemed null and void (see each of the Decisions 79Nu306, Dec. 26, 199; 90Meu27042, Apr. 9, 191). It is without merit.

3. We examine the above ground of appeal No. 1 (C).

According to the evidence No. 2, Article 13 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company listed the grounds for dismissal under subparagraphs 1 through 17 of the above Rules of Employment. Article 13 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company stated the grounds for dismissal under subparagraph 5 of the above Rules of Employment as the grounds for dismissal in violation of subparagraph 1 of the above Rules of Employment. On the other hand, subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the Regulation of Punishment (Disciplinary Action) attached to the above Rules of Employment stipulate the person causing the death as the grounds for disciplinary action. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit

The theory of the lawsuit cannot be a ground for dismissal solely on the ground of the occurrence of death under subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the above Article 13 of the Rules of Employment, and it is merely an independent opinion that the grounds for dismissal are the grounds for dismissal only when a criminal conviction is finalized pursuant to subparagraph 14 of Article 13 of the Rules of Employment. In addition, Article 30 of the rules of the lawsuit cannot take personnel measures against only a person who is subject to summary indictment due to an accident. However, in the case of a minor accident and a summary indictment, it merely excludes a person subject to personnel measures, such as the Plaintiff’s case, it does not constitute a case where the serious accident of death was caused and the summary indictment was not instituted at the time of the dismissal, and it does not change merely because it was before the decision

4. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that a dismissal disposition against the plaintiff is reasonable in light of the accident circumstance and the degree of damage, situation before and after the accident, equality with other accident drivers of the defendant company, etc., even though the plaintiff had been driving in a usually exemplary manner and agreed with his father after the accident, since disciplinary action against the plaintiff does not exceed the scope of discretion and there is a justifiable reason. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just and correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles such as theory of lawsuit.

5. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)