[해고무효확인등][공1977.4.15.(558),9968]
Whether dismissal can be an abuse of the right of dismissal, if the lighting of a company that has an important duty in the process of manufacturing precision machinery has moved to another place in another room after being stroked from the night service even after being stroked.
The defendant company is likely to cause serious damage to the company when manufacturing bees that require high level precision. Although a light that has basic and important duties in the process of besing manufacturing, such as the placement of workers of the defendant company and the management of the number of employees and the preparation of mechanical breakdowns, such as the preparation of maintenance work, etc., was discovered during night work at around 02:30 on October 30, 1970, it was found that he was at around 02:10 on December 13, 1971 that he was at around 02:10 on December 13, 1971 that he was found that he was at around 102:10 on the part of the defendant company, he again turned his snow to another room for damage. Thus, the dismissal of the defendant company constitutes a ground for disciplinary action due to the above violation of Article 46 subparagraph 2 of the Rules of Employment (a person who violated the law) (a person who violated the order and order of his workplace) and thus, the dismissal of the defendant company constitutes a ground for dismissal.
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act
[Judgment of the court below]
[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others
Seoul High Court Decision 73Na2301 delivered on June 28, 1974
The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
First, the defendant's attorney's ground of appeal is examined.
According to the original judgment and the records, the court below determined that the above act of the plaintiff as above was done by the defendant 1 in the production 1 and 3 tanks of the defendant company, and around October 3, 1970, at around 02:30, the above defendant company's work experience at the above defendant factory search room was discovered at the nearest 2:02:10 on December 13, 1971, which was discovered at the above defendant company's near 42:40 on the ground that the plaintiff's work experience at the above defendant company could not be viewed as a violation of Article 46 subparagraph 2 (a person who was dissatisfied with the above business order) of the defendant company's employment rules (a person who left his work without permission) and the defendant company's work experience at the above defendant's above 10:4 (a person who was found to have suffered damage to the defendant company without permission) and the defendant company's work experience at the above 10:4 (a person who violated the above provision of the Labor Standards Act).
However, according to the records, even if the above act of the plaintiff on December 13, 1971 does not leave the workplace, the plaintiff was found to not be at night work at the search room at around 02:30 on October 3, 1970, and even if it was discovered that he did not stop such flight, the above act was done on December 13, 1971 at around 02:10 on December 13, 1971, and the fact that he continued to move the snow of the supervisor to another cut room at different places where damage would occur, and the defendant company manufactured beeing which requires high precision, and the minor negligence of the worker is likely to cause serious damage to the company, and it does not constitute an abuse of the plaintiff's right of dismissal under Article 7 of the Labor Standards Act where the plaintiff violated the above legal principles as to dismissal regulations, and thus, it does not constitute an abuse of the plaintiff's right of dismissal under Article 7 of the Labor Standards Act.
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant’s attorney, the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, in order to re-examine the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)