The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the defect in disciplinary procedure

A. Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall be notified in writing of the grounds for and timing of the dismissal in order to dismiss a worker. This is to ensure that the employer is careful in dismissing the worker through written notification of the grounds for the dismissal, and that the dispute surrounding the existence and timing of the dismissal can be resolved in an appropriate and easy manner after the dismissal, and that the worker can respond appropriately to the dismissal. Therefore, when the employer gives written notice of the grounds for dismissal, the employer must be able to know in detail what is the grounds for the dismissal in the location of the worker. In particular, in the case of disciplinary dismissal, the specific facts or irregularities that are the substantial reasons for the dismissal must be stated. However, if a person subject to dismissal is already aware of what is the grounds for the dismissal and is sufficiently responding thereto, it cannot be said to be the notification of dismissal in violation of the above provision even if the grounds for dismissal were not written in detail (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da8609, Dec. 24, 2012).

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.

( 1 ) 원고는 2012. 5. 27. 경 B을 개설하여 팟캐스트 방송인 ' C ' 및 뉴스기사 등을 제공하였는데, 2012. 5. 27. 경부터 2012. 12. 17. 경까지 위 ' C ' 의 음성 팟캐스트 방송 ' D' 에 36회, 동영상 팟캐스트 방송 ' E ' 에 16회 이상 각 출연하였다 . ( 2 ) 원고는 2012. 12. 17. 자신의 트위터 계정 ( F, 트위터 계정의 명칭은 ' G ' 이다 ) 에 원심 판시 이 사건 트위터 글을 작성 · 게시하였다 . ( 3 ) 원고는 2012. 12. 18. 19 : 00경부터 ' C ' 홈페이지를 통해 생방송으로 진행된 ' H ' 에서 이 사건 트위터 글과 관련하여 " MBC가 자회사 파견 연장을 취소하고 즉각 복귀하라는 명령을 냈다. 곧 징계절차가 시작될 듯하다. 상당한 근거를 가지고 정황을 제시했는데 MBC 윗분들이 화가 나신 듯하다. " 고 말하였다 . ( 4 ) 피고가 2012. 12. 26. 전에 원고에게 보낸 인사위원회 개최통보서 ( 을 제4호증 ) 에는 인사위원회 부의 사유 및 근거에 관하여 " 회사명예실추 및 허가사항 ( C 출연 ) 위반 " , " 취업규칙 제4조 ( 품위유지 ), 제7조 ( 허가사항 ), 제66조 ( 징계사유 ) 등 " 이라고 기재되어 있다 .

In addition, the result of the personnel committee, which notified the Plaintiff of the instant dismissal as of January 15, 2013 (No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2), is stated as “the grounds for dismissal and the grounds for dismissal,” such as “the violation of the company honorary trends and permitted matters,” “Article 4 (Maintenance of Dignity), Article 7 (Matters to be Permitted), and Article 66 (Disciplinary Reason) of the Rules of Employment.”

(5) On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff appeared at the personnel committee, and “the subject of deliberation” was referred to the personnel committee for a violation of permitted matters in relation to the prosecution of company honor and external contribution through spreading false information. The violation of Articles 3, 4, 7, and 66 of the Rules of Employment. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to review the dismissal of the instant case on January 23, 2013, and stated specific opinions on the instant Twitter text and C Broadcasting Contribution.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was already aware of the grounds for dismissal at the time of the instant notice of dismissal and was in a situation sufficiently responding to them. Therefore, even if the instant notice of dismissal does not contain specific facts or irregularities related to the grounds for dismissal, it is difficult to regard the notification of dismissal in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the dismissal of this case was erroneous in its procedural violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, on the grounds that the notice of dismissal of this case was stated only as “the violation of corporate honorary order and permitted matters” and the notification of dismissal of this case could not be identified on the part of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the written notification of grounds for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the adequacy of a disciplinary decision

A. Dismissal of workers is justifiable in cases where there are grounds for an employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued under the generally accepted social norms. Whether the employee’s employment relationship with the relevant employee has reached the extent that it is impossible to continue, shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the purpose and characteristics of the relevant employer’s business, the conditions of the relevant employee’s workplace, status and duties, motive and background of the relevant act of misconduct, influence on the company’s business order, such as the risk of impeding the company’s deceptive order, and previous work attitude. If there are various kinds of disciplinary charges against the relevant employee, it shall not be determined with only one of the grounds for disciplinary actions or some of them, but shall be determined in light of the overall reasons. Even if the act of misconduct does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action, it may be considered as materials for consideration when taking disciplinary action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21962, Mar. 24, 2011).

In addition, if the rules of employment or the standing punishment provides for disciplinary reasons and the various kinds of disciplinary actions are possible for the same reason, the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action shall belong to the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, such discretion is not an arbitrary and convenient discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, and there is a balance that is deemed reasonable between the grounds for disciplinary action and the disciplinary action, so if it is recognized that the disciplinary action has abused the discretion that is left to the person having authority to take the disciplinary action because it has considerably lost validity under social norms, it is illegal (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu5627, Feb. 12, 191; 2005Du8269, Jan. 31, 2008, etc.).

Meanwhile, even in a case where an act of damaging another person’s reputation is committed, if it is a matter of public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, there is no illegality in such act, and even if there is no proof, if there is considerable reason to believe the content of the expression as true, it shall be deemed that it is not unlawful. However, whether there is a reasonable reason to believe the content of the expression as true or not shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the contents of the alleged fact, the certainty and credibility of the grounds or materials believed to be true, the easiness of factual verification, the degree of damage to the victim, etc., as a whole, whether the actor has performed an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the statement, and whether the authenticity is supported by objective and reasonable materials or grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823, Jan. 24, 2008, etc.).

나. 원심은 판시와 같은 이유를 들어, ( 1 ) ( 가 ) 이 사건 트위터 글은 그 일시, 인터뷰 주체 등 중요한 부분이 사실과 부합되지 않고, 피고의 사장이 시용기자를 통하여 I의 단독 인터뷰를 비밀리에 진행하였고 이를 선거 전날 보도할 예정이라는 내용은 피고가 선거에 영향을 미칠 의도로 과 인터뷰를 시도하였다는 취지로 해석될 수 있으므로 피고의 방송사로서의 공정성이나 신뢰도가 의심받을 여지도 충분하며, 따라서 원고가 자신의 트위터 계정에 이 사건 트위터 글을 게시한 행위는 사실과 다른 내용을 유포하여 피고의 명예를 훼손한 행위에 해당하므로 취업규칙상의 징계사유에 해당하고, ( 나 ) 원고가 B의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연한 것은 피고의 허가를 받지 아니하고 대외발표나 집회, 연설 또는 이와 유사한 행위를 한 경우에 해당하므로 취업규칙상의 징계사유에 해당한다고 판단하는 한편, ( 2 ) 판시와 같은 사실 및 사정들에 비추어 보면 원고에게 사회통념상 고용관계를 계속할 수 없을 정도로 중대한 귀책사유가 있다고 인정하기는 어렵고, 결국 이 사건 해고는 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 재량권의 범위를 벗어난 위법한 처분으로서 무효라고 판단하였다 .

C. However, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff did not accurately verify whether the Defendant had performed an interview prior to posting the instant Twitter, but, on the grounds that the Defendant’s posting of the instant Twitter is difficult to be deemed beyond the inherent limit of the freedom of expression on the grounds that it is a public broadcast, etc., one of the circumstances supporting the Defendant’s dismissal of the instant Twitter as one of the circumstances.

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if the Plaintiff, a reporter, posted the instant Twitter in the form of news in which the Plaintiff accused the Defendant through his Twitter account, and did not investigate or confirm the facts, and thereby spreads different contents from the facts that could be doubtful about the fairness or credibility of the Defendant, a public broadcaster, even if the Plaintiff believed the content as true, it is difficult to readily conclude that the posting of Twitter did not go beyond the inherent limit of the freedom of expression, and therefore, it is inappropriate to determine the above parts.

D. However, examining the remaining facts and circumstances cited by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below’s finding of such facts and determination that the dismissal of this case is unlawful and invalid as it goes beyond the scope of disciplinary discretion since it substantially loses validity under the social norms, is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to deviation and abuse of discretionary authority and fairness in disciplinary action, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

The Supreme Court decisions cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Conclusion

As seen earlier, the court below erred by finding the dismissal of this case as a procedural error, but as long as the court below's determination that dismissal of this case is null and void on the ground of substantial illegality beyond the scope of discretion of disciplinary action, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment due to such error, and therefore, the judgment of the court

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok