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.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs 140 full-time workers and carries out housing projects, land development projects, etc. under the Local Public Enterprises Act (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff or Plaintiff Corporation”), and the Intervenor entered the Plaintiff Corporation on August 29, 2005 and worked as a business employee in the planning department, compensation team, new business development group, etc.
B. On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) despite the fact that the Intervenor complied with the statutes and regulations and faithfully performed duties as the Plaintiff’s employees, the Plaintiff violated Article 5 (Duty of Good Faith) and Article 54 (Principle of Service) of the Service Regulations and Article 54 (Principle of Service) of the Personnel Regulations, including (b) 15 times of site site site location during the period from February 1, 2013 to April 21, 2013; (c) 14 times of absence from work site; (d) 8 times of April 22, 2013 to July 5, 2013; (e) 25 times of the period of work as the management support center; (e) 5-2 of the Service Regulations (Duty of Good Faith); and (e) 1 of this case’s hereinafter referred to as “the instant misconduct”).
(2) In accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, the intervenor shall be referred to as the "The Daegu Digital Industry Promotion Agency" (hereinafter referred to as the "Digital Industry Promotion Agency") which is an incorporated foundation to verify the facts that the intervenor has left the place of work
) The submission of relevant data (a business plan and an application, access image, details of payment of funds for supporting business start-ups, a business registration certificate) or consent to provide personal information, but the refusal to provide such data, Article 20 (Request for Submission of Data) of the Public Audit Act, Article 16 (Violation of the duty to submit audit data, and hereinafter referred to as "the second misconduct in this case").
(3) In light of the Intervenor’s output from March 1, 2013 to July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff’s total cumulative number of 396 units of business is 31 units of business, and the rest 365 units of business (92% of the Intervenor’s total number of 396 units of business, the number of total 396 units of business is 31 units of business, and the rest 365 units of business.