beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.09.07 2015구합100357

부당해고구제재심판정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a corporation established on July 1, 198 pursuant to the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act and employs approximately 4,00 full-time workers, and the Plaintiff is a person who joined the Intervenor on April 18, 1994 and was on duty as the Chungcheongnam Regional Headquarters B Team C Vice-level Vice-President from January 11, 2013.

B. On May 9, 2014, the Intervenor held a personnel committee (Grade B) and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff sexual harassmentd against the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) who was on duty (hereinafter “victim”) as follows (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”). On May 12, 2014, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”). On October 2012 or around November 2012, the Plaintiff, along with the victim, continued sexual talks by using the word “dial-a-the-job” for about 20 minutes in the E heading room with the victim and using the word “dial-the-job” in about 7 minutes, and the victim tried to change the agents, and the victim “I think I think I think I you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you.” The Plaintiff emphasized that “I think I think you do you do you do you do you do you do you.”

The Plaintiff finished his own foods, and then sent the message to the victim at night on the day, and then the victim sent the message, and then the following day, the Plaintiff saw that “the talked about to do so .....................................................”

2) On March 2013, the Plaintiff made a sense of sexual humiliation to the victims by stating that “F has female employees who are victims,” and that “B has a hole.”

3. On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff’s Messenger as the Defendant’s Messenger, the inside company, ought to be seen as Messenger.