(b) Provisions applicable in cases where the contents of employment rules regarding grounds for dismissal differ partially from each other;

(c) The case holding that dismissal for this reason does not deviate from the employer's disciplinary discretion authority on the ground that the act of distributing false printed matters which defame the company's reputation was conducted without a prior approval of the company under the rules of employment, it was distributed five times for a long time, and there is a concern that the employees might cause an appropriate awareness to the employer in light of the quantity of distribution, distribution targets, etc.

(b) If the contents of the rules of employment that 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 provisions for workers

(c) The case holding that dismissal does not deviate from the employer's disciplinary discretion on the ground that the act of distributing false printed matters which defame the company's reputation was conducted without a prior approval of the company under the rules of employment, was distributed five times for a long time, and there is a concern that the employees might cause an appropriate awareness to the employer in light of the quantity of distribution, distribution targets, etc., and there is a concrete danger that disturbs the company's

1. Fact-finding and judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant's 1 did not appear to have been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 1 did not appear to have been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 1 did not appear to have been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 1 had been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 5 on the ground that the non-party 1 had been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 1 on the same ground that the non-party 1 had been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 3 on the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 1 did not appear to have been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 2 had been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 1 had been subject to disciplinary action against the non-party 1 on the ground that he had been dismissed.

2. Judgment of party members

A. As to the first ground for appeal

According to Eul evidence No. 6, which is the printed matter of this case, that the defendant issued a false public notice of the non-party 1 for a minor three accidents. Meanwhile, although the non-party 1 filed a lawsuit claiming nullification of dismissal against the defendant with North Korea Branch of Seoul District Court regarding the above dismissal, the claim was dismissed, the facts which became final and conclusive as the non-party's loss can be recognized by the judgment bound by the records and the evidence of final judgment (record 577 pages, 588 pages), and the defendant did not accept the judgment of the court of first instance that "the non-party 1 had presented the above materials before the judgment was rendered after the closing of argument in order to prove such facts, and applied for the resumption of pleading before the judgment was rendered, but the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance that ruled "the non-party 1 was currently pending in the court of this case by filing a lawsuit seeking nullification of the above dismissal, it is clearly stated that the dismissal against the non-party 1 was unfair, and therefore, it did not contain any important grounds for the judgment as to find it.

In addition, according to the inducement of this case, in addition to the contents recognized by the first instance court, the non-party 1 filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of dismissal against the defendant's rejection of the above dismissal against his partner, and the defendant on this ground includes the contents that the non-party 1 joined another bus company and was forced to be dismissed from his company, but the court below did not conduct any deliberation on this issue.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The rules of employment of the defendant company stipulate that the disciplinary action against an employee shall be conducted by the president in accordance with the guidelines for disciplinary action against employees in attached Table (Article 44). According to the guidelines for disciplinary action against the defendant company, five kinds of disciplinary action such as dismissal (in spite of dismissal) classified as one disciplinary action by the type of disciplinary action, suspension from office (in addition, designation as a disciplinary action without pay), reduction of pay, and submission of notice at the end of time, etc. are provided, and five kinds of disciplinary action (in addition, designation as a disciplinary action without pay), suspension from office (in addition, designation as a disciplinary action without pay), reduction of pay, submission of notice at the end of time, etc. are provided; 1. High, one who causes damage to the reputation and money of the company; 5. Traffic accidents and traffic offenses, or one who has significant reasons to recognize as an accident driver at least three times a month, and five grounds such as dismissal under subparagraph 2 are provided, and the remaining grounds for disciplinary action (see subparagraph 1, 2, and 6.) are stated in the relevant column for disciplinary action (Article 7).

In addition, Article 50 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company separately provides for 15 reasons such as when the employee dies due to retirement or dismissal (i.e., when the employee is unable to perform his duties designated as a mental or physical obstacle (ii) or when the period of a labor contract expires (i.e., when the period of a labor contract expires), a person who has caused damage to the company honor and money and valuables due to an accident in employment (i.e., when subparagraph 6), a person who has received an administrative disposition not less than three times a month due to a traffic offense or a traffic accident, a person who has caused damage to the company by committing occupational negligence (i.e., a person who has caused damage to the company by committing occupational negligence) and a person who has violated the Rules of Employment (i.e.,

The contents of the rules of employment of the defendant company clearly distinguish the grounds for disciplinary action and the corresponding types of disciplinary action from the grounds for disciplinary action in the attached Table of Article 44. However, Article 50 separately prescribes the grounds for ipso facto retirement (when a worker under subparagraph 1 dies, termination of the term of employment contract under subparagraph 4, etc.), grounds for ordinary dismissal (when a worker under subparagraph 4 is unable to perform his/her duties due to mental or physical harm) and grounds for agreement (where he/she is unable to perform his/her duties due to mental or physical harm under subparagraph 3, etc.), as well as the above reasons for the cancellation of the agreement (where he/she is dismissed as a member dismissal under subparagraph 2), it is problematic whether the rules of employment, which provide for the grounds for disciplinary action that may be subject to dismissal, should be applied in some cases, and in such a case, more favorable provisions should be applied. Therefore, in imposing disciplinary action against a worker under the rules of employment in this case. However, the corresponding provisions of the same Article also apply.

In addition, the phrase "a person who has caused damage to the company's reputation and money and valuables" as a disciplinary ground that may be punished by disciplinary action No. 1 (in the attached Table 1) does not mean that a person can be dismissed only if he/she causes damage to the company's reputation and money and valuables at the same time. This is because, for example, it is not detrimental to the company's reputation in a case where a worker is removed from the company's property bus, etc. which is the company's property, and thus, it is unfair in such a case where the above interpretation is followed. This is the same as in the opposite case. Therefore, the above provision should be interpreted as "a person who intentionally damages the company's reputation or causes damage to the company's money and valuables." In addition, in interpreting the meaning of "accident" as one of the grounds for the above disciplinary action, the meaning of "a person who has significant reasons to recognize as an accident" should be interpreted as "a person who has caused serious injury to the company's employees who are engaged in urban bus transportation business during a short period exceeding the reasonable period of time.

Meanwhile, even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, if the contents of the inducement of this case were to be based on the facts established by the court below, it would impair the reputation of the defendant company if such contents were to be remotely from the facts established by the court below ( even though the court below recognizes the fact that the plaintiffs were convicted of a fine due to defamation by publications due to the distribution of the inducement of this case). It is clear that the distribution of such inducement constitutes "a person who defames the reputation of the defendant", one of the prescribed disciplinary grounds that can be punished by disciplinary action 1 under the above disciplinary guidelines, and the contents of the inducement of this case and the plaintiffs' distribution of the inducement of this case were not subject to the prior approval of the company in accordance with the rules of employment. From June 15, 191 to December 10 of the same year, it was distributed more than five times through a relatively long period of time, and the amount of the inducement was all distributed, and it is hard for the defendant to have the plaintiffs distributed the inducement of the defendant's labor contract as well as its distribution charges to the defendant's employees.

In addition, the court below also recognized the fact that the plaintiffs had caused multiple traffic accidents since the plaintiffs joined the defendant company as grounds for disciplinary action of this case, and there are significant grounds to recognize the plaintiffs as a driver who caused many accidents in light of the plaintiffs' service period, frequency of traffic accidents, etc. recognized by the court below, which is one of the prescribed grounds for disciplinary action that may be subject to disciplinary action 1 under the attached Table disciplinary guidelines (Article 50 subparagraph 9 of the Rules of Employment is the same as that of the Rules of Employment). In full view of these grounds for disciplinary action, the dismissal of this case caused by these grounds for disciplinary action shall not be deemed to have exceeded the scope of the discretion of disciplinary action, even if some of the circumstances at the time of the court below, such as the fact that the defendant did not consider all the traffic accidents caused by the plaintiffs before reaching the distribution of printed materials of this case, work experience of the plaintiffs, and the distribution of printed materials of this case, are considered.

3. Therefore, since the appeal is well-grounded, the part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)