부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.
The party status intervenor in the process of the instant decision on review is a corporation that runs the financial business by employing more than 9,000 full-time workers. The Plaintiff is a person whose employment is succeeded when the Seoul Trust Bank was merged with the Intervenor and worked as the Seoul Branch Office from January 6, 201, when the Seoul Trust Bank was merged with the Intervenor.
The instant disciplinary intervenor against the Plaintiff was dismissed on December 23, 2013 following the resolution of the Personnel Committee (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason Nos. 1 through 5”), following the following disciplinary grounds (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason Nos. 1 through 5”).
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】
1. The Plaintiff in violation of the prohibition of private lending and borrowing of money was engaged in private lending and borrowing with the chief of the affairs division of the designated judicial scrivener as follows.
On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000 to C, who is the chief secretary of the designated certified judicial scrivener, and received interest of KRW 150,000 per month.
B. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 6 million from E, the representative director of D Co., Ltd., a business partner.
2. In violation of unfair instructions and one person’s financial transaction guidelines, the Plaintiff had G agency prepare loan documents on behalf of F in order to approve the loan theory of F, and accordingly, the loan was executed without establishing a valid collateral security and a loan contract.
In addition, the Plaintiff did not receive a charter contract that enables confirmation of the value of security and the purpose of financing, and approved F to lend KRW 130 million to F even though F did not have the authority to approve because it fell under an interested party.
3. On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was instructed the head of H to prepare a written verification without confirming whether he/she is in charge of handling of facility loan and post-management, and the Plaintiff was given an order on February 28, 2012 to operate a facility loan of KRW 1 billion to I, and accordingly, did not pay the facility fund according to the nature of the payment.
The plaintiff also loans to the I Account on the date of the loan, unless there is a direct reason for payment.