부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
(Other grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial were examined, the findings of fact and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion are justifiable). [Attachment] In the second instance judgment, the term “abrutization” in the second 8-9 of the first instance judgment is construed as “abrutization.”
On the 13th page 2-3 of the first instance judgment, "B evidence 16-1 to 4" is "B evidence 16-1 to 4, 36 of Eul," respectively, and "each witness J and K's testimony" in the 3-4th page 3-4 of the same 13th page is "K's witness of the first instance trial, part of witness J's testimony of the first instance trial."
[Supplementary Part] No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be accepted.
“The following shall be added:
In addition, the plaintiff argues that the photograph of the workplace (No. 32-1) submitted by the participating company (No. 32-1) is merely a change in the placement after the plaintiff retired, and that the workplace was taken by three CCTVs at the time of the plaintiff's actual service, and that the ice table was not installed on the side of the ice table. However, considering that the CCTV was not taken by the victim of sexual harassment, the plaintiff cannot believe each statement of victim D and F.
However, at the court of first instance, K in charge of disciplinary action against the plaintiff confirmed two CCTVs in total, but CCTV was found to be a 55 cm back the plaintiff's back water, and it was difficult for the plaintiff to confirm the form of the plaintiff on the ground that the CCTV was installed on the ice table that the plaintiff was 1m and 5m high on the ice table, and that the plaintiff talked about the hostile pole."