부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.
2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except for the addition of some contents as set forth in the following 2. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. The following is added after the 7th day of the first instance judgment and the 19th day below.
The defendant and the intervenor asserted that the accident caused by the plaintiff constitutes a serious misconduct in violation of the obligation under the above employment contract, since they agreed to the special agreement that "if a vehicle accident occurs, it may be dismissed, etc." while renewal of the employment contract on January 1, 2013." The two vehicle accidents caused by the plaintiff during the course of driving a cleaning vehicle. The vehicle accident in this case is in contact with the incineration facility that was damaged or was in contact with the plaintiff during the course of driving the cleaning vehicle, and it is difficult to view that the above accident constitutes a serious misconduct to the extent that the dismissal is considered, even considering the specific contents and circumstances of the accident in this case, and the degree of damage inflicted on the defendant and the intervenor. The accident does not result in the above accident due to the negligence among alcohol, speed, driving, etc., which is not caused by the accident. Moreover, the intervenor suffered economic damage that is somewhat increased. According to this, the defendant and the intervenor's above assertion is not accepted."
B. The following is added to five (9) first five (5) written judgments of the court of first instance.
"In this regard, the defendant and the intervenor knew that the intervenor would be present while mentioning the importance of the field evaluation of the agency in Chuncheon City, but the plaintiff did not attend at the time of the evaluation and did not contact with the plaintiff, the defendant and the intervenor argued that this part of the misconduct exists.
The plaintiff's act of this part.