부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established on March 2, 2010 and engaged in biotechnology-related manufacturing and sales business.
Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff on October 1, 2013 and served as the vice president of the Strategic Planning Department.
B. On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) held a personnel committee (the chairperson: representative director C) on November 18, 2014; (b) decided to punish the Intervenor on the ground that “the Intervenor unduly withdrawn KRW 400 million from the company’s funds (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”); and (c) copied and leaked the company confidential data without permission (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”); and (d) notified the Intervenor on November 20, 2014.
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). The Intervenor dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action, and filed an application for reexamination with the Plaintiff. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff held a review personnel committee to maintain the existing decision, and notified the Intervenor of the same content on December 8, 2014.
C. On January 8, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against the instant disciplinary action with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on March 17, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, but is deemed to have a ground for disciplinary action, and there is a defect in the procedure of disciplinary action.”
On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on July 7, 2015.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's summary intervenor does not constitute the plaintiff's vice president and does not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The grounds for disciplinary action against the intervenor are all recognized.
In addition, the degree of the misconduct is serious, and serious damage to the plaintiff has occurred.