Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Republic of Korea

Law Firm Han, Attorney Shin-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

○○ Broadcasting Corporation

Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Macalamro

○○○

Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Lee In-bok et al.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a broadcasting business entity that runs broadcasting business and cultural service business. The Plaintiff is a broadcasting business entity.

11.1. On November 14, 201, he/she was employed by the Defendant and served as a broadcasting machine, and on November 14, 201, he/she was dispatched to MBC & I (hereinafter referred to as MBC A; hereinafter referred to as "MBC") by MBA, a subsidiary of the Defendant. < Amended by Act No. 11334, Dec. 12, 2012>

17. Until December 18, 2012, the Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea.

나. 1 ) 원고는 2012. 5. 27. 경 고발뉴스닷컴 ( www. gobalnews. com ) 을 개설하여 팟캐스트 ( podcast ) 방송인 ' go발뉴스 ' 및 뉴스기사 등을 제공하였다. 위 ' go발뉴스 ' 는 동영상 팟캐스트 방송인 ' 발뉴스 TV ', 음성 팟캐스트 방송인 ' 개나발 RADIO ' 로, 뉴스기사는' 정치go발 ', ' 사회go발 ', ' 소비자go발 ', ' 미디어go발 ' 로 구성되어 있다. 원고는 2012. 5 .

27. From around December 17, 2012 to around December 17, 2012, each contribution was made at least 36 times in the “Round Round Round Round Round”, and at least 16 times in the “Sap News TV.”

2) On December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff written and posted a letter on his Twitter account (htp: / www. Twitter.com/leanghoC, and Twitter account, hereinafter referred to as “com”) containing the following contents (hereinafter referred to as “twitter news”).

< 긴급 > MBC 김재철, 김정남 단독인터뷰 비밀리 진행, 선거 전날 보도 예정설. . 타부서 시용기자로 구성된 비선 취재팀 어제, 오늘 양일간 인터뷰 완료했다. 함. . 나꼼수 예언 현실화 우려. . 오전 중 사측 취재해 go발뉴스 추가 보도 계획< 2보 > 김정남 인터뷰 진행은 MBC 사회부 특별취재팀 작품으로 카메라와 취재기자모두 시용기자 출신. . 사실상 김재철 사장 비선팀으로 권재홍 보도본부장에게 직보 한다는 첩보. . 사회부 기자들도 특취팀 존재 몰라, 기자들 멘붕< 3보 > 유력 정보통 “ 김정남 3주 전 마카오 떠났다. 현재 소재 못 밝혀 ”. . 여권, 문후보 추격 위기감 김정남 카드 필요 판단 가능성. . MBC 보도국 기자들, 시용기자보도 강행 막기 위해 불침번. . 편성에선 오전 9시 30분 특별보도설 모락모락< 4보 > 김재철 MBC ' 대선 3일 전 김정남 인터뷰 지시한 건 사실 ’ 인정, 그러나 ' 아직 못 만났다 ' 해명. . ‘ 특정후보 돕기 위한 것 ’ 아니라면 인터뷰 추진 과정, 성사 여부, 김재철 지시 여부 등 투명하게 밝혀야 3 ) 피고는 2012. 12. 18. 자회사인 엠비씨씨앤아이에 파견되어 있던 원고에게 복귀명령을 하고, 그 후 인사위원회의를 개최하여 ' 회사명예실추 및 허가사항 위반 ' 을 징계사유로 하여 원고를 2013. 1. 15. 자로 해고하기로 의결하고, 2013. 1. 15. 경 원고에게 이 사건 해고사실을 통지하였다 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 해고 ' 라 한다 ) . 4 ) 그 후 원고는 피고를 상대로 이 사건 해고의 무효확인 및 임금의 지급을 구하는 해고무효확인 등 청구의 소를 제기하였고 ( 서울남부지방법원 2013가합3492 ), 위 1심 법원은 2013. 11. 22. 이 사건 해고가 징계 재량권의 일탈, 남용으로서 무효라는 이유로 ' 이 사건 해고는 무효임을 확인한다. 피고는 2013. 1. 16. 부터 원고를 복직시키는 날까지 월 400만 원의 비율에 의한 돈을 지급하라 ' 는 내용의 판결을 선고하였다. 피고가 이에 불복하여 항소하였으나 ( 서울고등법원 2013477425 ), 2014. 10. 13. 피고의 항소가 기각되었고, 위 항소심 판결에 대한 피고의 상고 ( 대법원 2014다76434 ) 가 2015. 7. 9 .

was dismissed.

C. After that, the Plaintiff returned to the Defendant. On August 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) made and posted the instant Twitter writing on December 17, 2012, thereby impairing the reputation of the Defendant; (b) made a decision of suspension from office for the Plaintiff under Article 66 subparag. 1, 2, and 6 of the Defendant’s Rules of Employment on May 27, 2012 to December 17, 2012; and (c) made a decision of suspension from office for the Plaintiff under Article 3, 4, and 7 subparag. 1 of the Defendant’s Rules of Employment on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Article 3, 66 subparag. 1, 2, and 6 of the Defendant’s Rules of Employment; and (d) made a decision of suspension from office for the Plaintiff on May 16, 204.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn from the Defendant Company after receiving the instant suspension disposition.

E. The defendant's employment rules are as follows.

Article 3 (Duty to Observe Provisions) The Company shall work as an employee under these Rules and its employees shall be obliged to observe the matters prescribed by these Rules and the Company’s regulations and to faithfully perform their duties in accordance with the commercial instruction.Article 4 (Maintenance of Dignity) The employee shall not commit any act detrimental to the reputation and dignity of the Company, observe the broadcasting discipline and the Code of Ethics, respect mutual recognition, and maintain the order of the workplace. In any of the following cases, the employee under Article 7 (Matters Permitted) shall be notified in advance to the head of the relevant department and the Director General in charge of personnel affairs of the company and obtain the Company’s permission. 1. Where an external announcement is made, such as outside attendance and contributions, etc., the kinds of disciplinary action and the details of the disposition shall be as follows: 5. Suspension: Within six months: The employee shall not be engaged in his duties during that period, but shall not be paid remuneration when he violates the obligation to discipline the employee under Article 62 (Kinds 1) through 3:

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant Twitter’s main part is consistent with the main part and thus cannot be deemed to have disseminated false facts. The Plaintiff contributed to the accused news with support and encouragement of MFCA and thus cannot be a ground for disciplinary action. As such, the instant ground for suspension of office does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action. Even if the instant ground for suspension of office constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, the instant disposition of suspension of office is a deviation from and abuse of the Defendant’s discretion. Therefore, the instant disposition of suspension of office is deemed to be null and void because the said law and the degree of illegality is grave and obvious. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s invalidity of the instant disposition of suspension of office is sought.

B. Benefits of confirmation

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

action to remove risks or apprehensions with respect to current rights or legal status.

However, even in the past legal relations, if it has an impact on the present rights or legal status, and it is recognized that obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the legal relations is an appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions about the present rights or legal status (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36407, Oct. 14, 2010, etc.).

In the instant case, as seen earlier, the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated by voluntarily withdrawing after the instant suspension disposition. In such a situation, if the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of invalidity of the suspension disposition intends to seek wages due to the instant suspension disposition, it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff’s claim as an effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s current rights or legal status and the Plaintiff’s risks or apprehensions. Moreover, if it is intended to recover damage to the social reputation, it cannot be deemed to have been intended to eliminate risks or apprehensions to existing rights or legal status. Even if it is intended to eliminate risks where the opportunity for reemployment is limited, barring special circumstances, such restriction on the opportunity for reemployment cannot be deemed as a legal disadvantage, and thus, it cannot be deemed as having any existing risk or apprehension in rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da4011, Apr. 111, 1995). Unless there are special circumstances, there is no benefit in the instant lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-hee

Regular Category of Judges