부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff Company is a corporation that manufactures carbon beverages and engages in wholesale and retail business.
Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff Company on May 1, 199, and served as an employee at the lower sales set of the Dong business team affiliated with the business division of the Seoul metropolitan area as an employee.
B. On April 5, 2003, the intervenor was subject to the disposition of revocation of driver's license due to a drunk driving on December 18, 2005, and was subject to the disposition of suspension of driver's license due to a drunk driving on December 18, 2005. On June 3, 2016, the contact accident occurred due to the negligence of dump truck while serving at work using a business vehicle on June 3, 2016. As a result of the dump measurement
On July 6, 2016, the intervenor was issued a disposition to revoke the driver's license for two years (from July 26, 2016 to July 25, 2018) by the Commissioner of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency for drinking at least three times on July 6, 2016 due to the drinking driving on June 3, 2016. On September 28, 2016, the intervenor was issued a summary order of a fine of two million won at the Jung-gu District Court on July 28, 2016.
C. On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff Company commenced a disciplinary procedure with respect to the Intervenor’s misconduct “two years of revocation of driver’s license according to the accumulated three times of drunk driving and drinking driving.” On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff Company held a personnel committee on August 22, 2016. On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff Company notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor would be subject to disciplinary action as of October 14, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”).
The intervenor filed an application for review, and the plaintiff company organized the personnel committee for review (hereinafter "the review committee of this case") with the representative director C as the chairperson of the personnel committee, the executive D, the executive E, and the chief director of the division as a member, and had the personnel committee deliberate on the intervenor's request for review.
(hereinafter “instant review procedure”). On October 19, 2016, the Review Committee does not accept the Intervenor’s request for review and does not dismiss the Intervenor’s request for review, which is a resolution of the existing personnel committee.