해고무효확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the fifth 5th 19th 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as to whether it should undergo disciplinary proceedings, and except for adding the judgment under the following second 2, it is identical to the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on addition
A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the interpretation of “guilty guilty of imprisonment without prison labor or more” under Article 32(1)3 of the Defendant’s Personnel Management Regulations, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s concurrent operation without permission among the grounds for temporary dismissal under Article 32(1) of the Defendant’s Personnel Management Regulations, or the appointment of officers and employees of profit-making corporations, nonperformance of the duty to compensate, etc., cannot be a justifiable ground for temporary dismissal in comparison with the seriousness of the grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the Defendant’s Personnel Management Guidelines, and that the remainder of the grounds for temporary dismissal, except for these, is long-term and long-term, making it impossible to perform the duty to provide labor so that the purpose of labor contract can not be achieved, the “guilty guilty of imprisonment without prison labor
However, the mere fact that there are more severe grounds than the grounds such as concurrent operation without permission for disciplinary dismissal or the appointment of executive officers and employees of a profit-making corporation or non-performance of a duty of compensation, etc. cannot be readily concluded that the above grounds are void as a matter of course
Furthermore, Article 32(1) of the Defendant’s Personnel Regulations, even if excluding these reasons, includes the grounds for temporary dismissal as stated in the grounds for temporary dismissal even though the performance of the duty to provide labor is not impossible, such as “at the time of continuous absence for at least five days or for up to ten days in total,” and Article 32(1) of the Defendant’s Personnel Regulations also includes the grounds for temporary dismissal based on whether the performance of the duty to provide labor is impossible.