부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the first instance court’s decision, in addition to the fact that the “the instant disciplinary measure” (hereinafter “the instant disciplinary measure”) was taken as “the instant disposition of dismissal and the said reduction of salary for six months,” and the “each of the above disciplinary measures” was taken as “the instant disposition of dismissal and the instant disciplinary measure.” As such, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this part is cited.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The instant disciplinary action, based on the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is legitimate for the following reasons, and thus, the instant decision of retrial, which determined that the instant disciplinary action is unfair on a different premise, should be revoked in an unlawful manner.
1) Whether there is a defect in disciplinary proceedings or not), the provisions on the inspection and sanctions of credit unions (hereinafter “new cooperation regulations”) and the enforcement rules thereof apply in cases where the National Credit Union Federation of Korea inspects or sanctions the unit compromise. Therefore, the Plaintiff may take disciplinary action against the Intervenor only at the meeting of the Plaintiff Council without holding the deliberation and re-committee.
B) While a disciplinary measure against the Intervenor is required to be decided by the Plaintiff’s personnel committee, the revision to the resolution by the Plaintiff’s board of directors does not constitute an amendment to the rules of employment disadvantageous to the employee. Therefore, it is not necessary to obtain consent from a majority of the workers under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act. C) The Plaintiff’s president G does not constitute a ground for exclusion under relevant provisions, and thus, it is possible to
2. The existence of the grounds for disciplinary action and the appropriateness of disciplinary action are recognized, and the disciplinary action is appropriate in light of the degree of the misconduct.
B. Attached to the relevant regulations “relevant regulations”