A

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeals are all dismissed.

Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 40% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription cannot be deemed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or erred

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view the reprimand, suspension from office, and dismissal of the instant case as a tort against the Plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for establishment of tort. The ground of appeal No. 3

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that, after January 1, 2016, the wages that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff ought to be calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff was engaged in general duties, not marketing duties, and received an intermediate performance rating.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the rules of logic and experience or by violating the rules of evidence.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the dismissal of this case was null and void all of the reprimand, suspension, and dismissal of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff committed the same act as the grounds for reprimand, suspension from office, and dismissal of this case, and that the dismissal of this case was abuse of discretionary power entrusted to the person who

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the legitimacy of disciplinary action.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case cannot be deemed as impermissible in accordance with the principle of invalidation.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles on the principle of invalidation, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation. In the case of the ground of appeal No. 3, where the dismissal of workers for the period during which they could have provided labor as well as seeking confirmation of nullity, the lawsuit to nullify the dismissal is obviously aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the defendant and the defendant. As such, it is obvious that the lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of dismissal is to be aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the defendant and the defendant. Thus, if the retirement age, which is the ground of the defendant's personnel regulations, has already been attained at the time of the closure of the arguments at the fact-finding court, it is impossible to recover the status as

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57362 Decided July 22, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da14036 Decided June 13, 2013, etc.)

According to the records, even if dismissal is confirmed as null and void, it became impossible to recover the status of an employee as an employee, since it is apparent that the retirement age has arrived at around May 31, 2017, which was after the closure of the arguments in the instant case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for nullification of dismissal does not have a benefit of confirmation.

Meanwhile, Article 5(1)7 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies provides that a person subject to disciplinary action against an executive or employee (including notification corresponding to the relevant measure in cases of retired or retired executive or employee) pursuant to the said Act or finance-related Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be an executive officer of a financial company for whom the period prescribed by Presidential Decree not exceeding five years has yet to elapse from the date of dismissal by disciplinary action. However, according to the records, it is apparent that five years have yet to elapse from October 25, 2005, which is the date of dismissal by disciplinary action, and thus, there is no restriction on the opportunity for re-employment under the Acts and subordinate statutes that may arise from disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is an interest in the confirmation of invalidity is no longer acceptable.

Furthermore, if the Plaintiff’s ground for filing a claim for nullification of a disciplinary dismissal disposition, which is merely a previous legal act, is to prevent the occurrence of a disciplinary dismissal from unfairly affecting the future re-employment, this cannot be deemed to aim at eliminating the risk or apprehension of existing rights or legal status, and thus, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of such invalidity. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim for nullification of dismissal is unlawful, and this part of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and this part is sufficient to be directly tried by this court, and therefore, it is decided to be self-employed pursuant to Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act. The judgment of the court of first instance as to the claim for nullification of dismissal is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed, all of the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed,

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Chang-tae, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Lee Dong-won