부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal by the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified even if the plaintiff's testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 36 through 60 (including the provisional number) and witness AB submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance were taken into account.
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for dismissal or addition as follows.
On the other hand, the Intervenor asserts that there is no ground for disciplinary action itself, but this argument is inconsistent with the decision of reexamination that “if there exists a ground for disciplinary action, but it is excessive to take a disciplinary action,” and as a result, the decision of reexamination by the National Labor Relations Commission is unlawful, so it is not only an unfavorable act against the Defendant who is the original party, but also an unlawful addition or change of the ground for disposition
2.No. 15 pages 15 of the part being removed or added, the following shall be added:
On September 28, 2010, the Plaintiff’s representative director made efforts to secure authenticity, such as the expression of intent to withdraw industrial action after lock-out through the atmosphere of illegal behavior in the union, documents, etc. on several occasions, and the submission of a written commitment to provide good labor to each member of the union. In light of the position that the requirements of violation of the law, such as typ, etc., such as typ, will be discussed within the framework of the law, it is difficult to conclude that there is no authenticity of the intent to return to work in the union.
In addition, some of the "terms and conditions" presented by ear company as the condition for withdrawal of lock-out.