2. Quantities00

1. On July 22, 2011, the Central Labor Relations Commission revoked the final decision made in relation to the case of the application for unfair dismissal relief application between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant on July 22, 2011.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part resulting from the participation in the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person that employs 390 full time workers and carries on passenger transport services at the above location. The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) Kim ○ is a juristic person that employs 390 full time workers. The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s O was employed on April 2, 2003, and the Intervenor’s O was employed as a driver on December 2, 2006, while the Intervenor Kim ○ was employed as a driver on December 2, 2006, and the Intervenor’s O returned 2,90 won, and 5,200 won, respectively.

29. Persons who were disciplinary dismissal (hereinafter referred to as "each of the disciplinary dismissals in this case") are those who were disciplinary dismissals.

B. On January 27, 201, the Intervenor asserted that the dismissal of each of the instant disciplinary actions was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 27, 201. The said Labor Relations Commission, despite the grounds for dismissal of each of the instant disciplinary actions, deemed the dismissal of the Intervenor Kim ○ was unfair, and determined as reasonable dismissal by deeming that the dismissal of the Intervenor’s 00 was reasonable.

C. On July 22, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor YangO filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on the part unfavorable to them during the first inquiry tribunal set forth in the preceding paragraph, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the ground that all of the disciplinary dismissal dismissals in the instant case are unfair dismissal on the following grounds, and accepted both objections.

○ The Intervenor’s failure to pay each transport revenue of KRW 5,200 and KRW 800 to the Plaintiff by the Intervenor Kim ○, even if there seems to be a practice that partially unpaid transport revenue, it cannot be deemed a justifiable act in light of the criteria for disciplinary action under Article 42 of the collective agreement and the rules on disciplinary action against employees, and the labor-management agreement concluded on May 1, 2006, etc., and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.

In light of the aforementioned facts, it is difficult to view that the Intervenor’s act of failing to pay the remainder of the cash fee was intentional or planned because the Intervenor’s cash amount and cash amount were written differently in the operation log submitted by the Intervenor, and there is no example of disciplinary action on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the cash fee on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the same type of transportation revenue, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff installed CCTV in the bus, on the other hand, provided the collective agreement and rules of employment that the Plaintiff imposed heavy disciplinary action on the arrival of transportation revenue on the bus, while there was no evidence to deem that the Intervenor provided education to workers on the other hand, and provided special instructions and legitimacy of the payment of the remainder of the cash fee, and that it is necessary to consider the Intervenor’s act of failing to pay the remainder of the cash fee to the company for several years, and it is difficult to view that the Intervenor’s act of failing to pay the remainder of the cash fee constitutes a serious cause attributable to social norms.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

There is no practice in which the remaining money is not paid out of the transportation revenue, and the embezzlement of the intervenor's transportation revenue is an act that seriously undermines the trust between labor and management, and the bus fee itself is the original small amount of embezzlement and the small amount of embezzlement. Therefore, it is possible to dismiss the participant regardless of the difference in the amount of embezzlement.

In particular, the participants are more likely to commit misconduct by embezzlementing transportation revenues twice, and the level of misconduct is more severe. In light of the labor-management agreement prepared by the intervenors at the time of entry, and the disciplinary action standards under the collective agreement, the collective agreement, and the employee disciplinary action regulations, the amount of each of the instant disciplinary actions is appropriate.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On September 16, 2010, the Intervenor Kim○-○ operated the bus from South Korea to Jeonju on September 16, 2010 to 07:03, and on the same day, around 07:09, the Intervenor received KRW 6,400 from one cash passenger at the temporary storage site in the Southernbuk-west North Korea, but only KRW 6,00 was paid to the Plaintiff.

B) On September 28, 2010, 2010, the Intervenor Kim ○ operated the bus to Jeonju on a ero by starting a 00 chemical and operating the bus to Jeonju on a ero by using lusium. At around 09:35 on the same day, the Intervenor: (a) boarded the passenger on a grosium - while boarding the instant bus at around 09:35 on a erosium; and (b) paid in cash the amount of KRW 6,400 corresponding to the erosium section of the Jeonju. However, the Intervenor paid KRW 6,00 in cash to the Plaintiff on the operation daily cash column.

2) On September 17, 2010, the Intervenor YangO operated a bus from 00 South Korea to 15:0 on September 17, 2010. At around 15, 2010, 15:07, one cash passenger on the same day; 15:10,400 won ( = 6,400 won x 11) out of 10 cash passengers on the operation date; 200,000 won in cash on the operation date; 30,00 won in cash on September 12, 2010 to the Plaintiff; 20,000 won in cash on September 12, 201 to the Plaintiff; 20,000 won in cash on September 27, 201 to the Plaintiff; 30,000 won in cash on the operation date; 20,000 won in total on September 25, 201 to the Plaintiff.

3) On October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff’s representative director, while holding an interview with the Intervenor YangO on October 6, 2010, notified of the arrival of transport income and demanded voluntary resignation or preparation of a blank letter and submission of a blank letter, but the Intervenor YangO did not comply with the request of the representative director.

4) On October 13, 2010, the Plaintiff’s Vice Minister Kim Jong-soo revealed that he had shown closed-circuit telecom ( CCTV) and demanded the Intervenor Kim Jong-○ to voluntarily resign and voluntarily resign the transport income. However, the Intervenor Kim Jong-○ went out of the office by turning 4,00 won against this demand. The Plaintiff transferred 4,000 won on the day to the Intervenor Kim Jong-○’s account. 5) At the time of the instant disciplinary action, the Plaintiff identified the amount of embezzlement of 2,50 won on September 28, 2010, by the Plaintiff’s CCTV reading staff, the amount of embezzlement of 2,50 won on September 28, 2010, which was paid in cash by the Plaintiff’s CCTV reading staff for the sake of grain - KRW 2,100 between South and North won with boarding tickets, KRW 6,400 on the day before sunrise - KRW 500 on the day of the instant disciplinary action.

Collective Agreement

Article 42 (Dismissal)

1. The Company shall dismiss a member of the Company, without consultation with the Trade Union and Labor Relations Division, whose evidence of denying embezzlement or transport earnings of the Company’s property is clear.

Rules of Employment

Article 56 (Dismissal)

If an employee falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall be dismissed: Provided, That disciplinary measures may be taken in consideration of the circumstances:

(5) When the Company appropriates any property or public fund of the Company, the Company shall take disciplinary action, such as dismissal for any reason prescribed by these Rules. (1) If the Company wishes to take disciplinary action, such as dismissal, for any reason as prescribed by these Rules, it shall do so in accordance with a separate employee disciplinary provision.

Article 71 (Categories of Discipline)

The kinds of disciplinary action shall be as follows:

(1) Reprimand: (1) When the normal circumstances are minor, the warning shall be given by receiving the horse written by the person himself and admonishing him. (2) The reduction shall be made within the extent not exceeding 1/10 of the total amount of wages during the period of wage payment; (3) The suspension of attendance at work shall not exceed 30 days; and (4) the period of suspension shall not be paid, but shall not be more than one month and not more than three months; and (5) the period of suspension shall be unpaid: (6) the person who has no fixed attendance due to extremely serious circumstances, and who falls under Article 56 of these Rules, in principle, shall be dismissed.

Article 13 (Standards for Disciplinary Action) The demand for disciplinary action and standards for disciplinary action shall be in accordance with the attached Table of Disciplinary Action Regulations.

Criteria for disciplinary action in the annexed Table.

A. General instructions (based on recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 8, witness title, and the purport of the whole pleadings are the facts without dispute. Whether the ruling on retrial in this case is lawful or not

1) Existence of grounds for dismissal of each of the disciplinary actions in this case

The facts that the Intervenor embezzled part of the transport income are as seen above. The Intervenor asserted that there was a practice that the driver arbitrarily disposes of the remaining part of the transport income. However, the Intervenor’s testimony of the witness Kim Jong-chul is difficult to believe all in light of the evidence Nos. 3 through 5 as shown in the above argument and the witness testimony of the evidence No. 9 and the witness 2, and it is insufficient to recognize that there was such a practice as alleged in the above argument. In addition, as recognized earlier, Article 42 subparag. 1 of the collective agreement, Article 56 subparag. 5 and subparag. 6 of the Rules of Employment, Article 71 subparag. 21 of the Rules of Employment, and Article 13 subparag. 21 of the Rules of Employment provide for the grounds for the embezzlement of the company’s property or the dismissal of the transport income of the driver. Thus, each of the grounds for the instant disciplinary action called the embezzlement of transport income constitutes a justifiable ground for

However, at the time of each of the instant disciplinary actions, the Plaintiff recognized that the Intervenor Kim○-○ embezzled KRW 2,500 on September 28, 2010, and punished the Intervenor. However, as recognized earlier, the said Intervenor’s embezzlement is recognized to have been caused by the following grounds: (a) the cash payment customer who paid the cash from celebstin to celebstin - the remaining part of the former part - the remainder of the former part - the payment of only the cash payment corresponding to the former part of the CCTV reading personnel did not find any address; and (b) celebstin - the former part of the former part - the said Intervenor’s temporary embezzlement was 400 won as recognized above; and (c) the embezzlement of KRW 500 on September 28, 2010 against the Intervenor Kim○-○ is recognized to have been subject to disciplinary action within the scope of KRW 400,000.

2) Whether the determination of dismissal of each of the disciplinary actions of this case is appropriate or not

Dismissal is justified in a case where there are reasons for an employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employee’s employment relationship with the employee is determined by social norms shall be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances such as the purpose and nature of the employer’s business, conditions of the workplace, status and details of the employee’s duty, motive and background of the act of misconduct, influence on the company’s business order such as the risk of disturbing the company’s deceptive order, and previous attitude of work (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da706

8. It is, in principle, at the discretion of the person having authority to take disciplinary measures when a disciplinary measure is taken against a worker. Thus, in order to be unlawful, the disciplinary measure is limited to the case where the person having authority to take disciplinary measures has been deemed to abuse the discretionary power when the disciplinary measure significantly lacks validity under the social norms, and the disciplinary measure is deemed to be a disposition which has considerably lost validity under the social norms, depending on specific cases, it shall be deemed that it is clearly unfair objectively in light of the characteristics of the job, the contents and nature of the misconduct for which the ground for the disciplinary measure occurred, and the purpose of the disciplinary measure and all the circumstances accompanying the disciplinary measure (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du858, Oct. 13, 200; 202Du4860, Sept. 24, 2002).

(6) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s act of embezzlement and 6’s act of embezzlement and 10% of the total amount of 20% of the total amount of 20% of the total amount of 20% of the total amount of 20% of the total amount of 20% of the 20th of the 20th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 3rd.

3) Intermediate conclusion

Therefore, the dismissal of each of the instant disciplinary actions is lawful, and the judgment of review of this case, which was otherwise determined, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.