부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act
2. The appellate brief Nos. 4, 17, and 18 of the first instance judgment on the part of the appellate brief is that “The case is currently pending in the appellate court as of the time of the intervenor’s appeal” is that “The intervenor appealeds against the above judgment, but the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on July 9, 2015, and became final and conclusive around that time.”
The 5th sentence of the first instance judgment, the 8th to 7th sentence, and the 4th sentence are as follows.
Judgment
1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of oral argument as seen earlier, whether the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized or not, the Intervenor’s attendance at the company three hours prior to the working hours on January 10, 2014 constitutes “a person who, without permission or prior approval, resists against or refuses to comply with the legitimate order of his/her superior to the order of his/her superior to the disciplinary action under Article 80(2) of the Rules of Employment.”
Therefore, the first ground is recognized as a cause of disciplinary action.
B) On January 10, 2014, the Intervenor was sentenced to a fine for injury as a result of the Plaintiff’s physical fighting with the attachment of the Plaintiff’s former E and Si reserve forces, a superior, in the Plaintiff’s office on January 10, 2014. In the process of physical fighting, E, in excess of the floor, was injured by the strong right-hand side of the upper right requiring treatment for about four weeks, and the Intervenor was sentenced to a fine for the crime of injury as seen earlier. This constitutes “a person who disturbs the order of service due to an assault in the company or interferes with his/her business” as stipulated in Article 80 subparag. 25 of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff. Therefore, Article 80 subparag. 12 of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff on March 3, 2014 is recognized as grounds for disciplinary action.