부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Circumstances, etc. of the decision on retrial;
A. The intervenor is a corporation that employs approximately five hundred full-time workers and runs the business of supplying hybrid home shopping programs.
On December 26, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the intervenor and served in the global business team, etc.
B. C served as an intern at the Intervenor’s global business team from December 23, 2013 to February 21, 2014, and the Plaintiff served as C’s leader.
C. C concluded a full-time employment contract with an intervenor on March 17, 2014.
C On April 26, 2017, the Intervenor expressed his/her intent to terminate his/her employment contract on the ground that he/she entered a graduate school. On January 28, 2014, the Intervenor reported to the Intervenor on January 17, 2014, but on January 20, 2014, C, not January 17, 2014 but January 20, 2014, reported that he/she was sexually indecent act by the Plaintiff.
On May 23, 2017, the intervenor notified the plaintiff of the above report when the plaintiff, who had worked in the intervenor's Thai corporation, returned to the Republic of Korea.
The plaintiff denied the fact of sexual indecent act against C, but on the 26th of the same month, expressed the intervenor's intent to terminate the labor contract.
E. On June 4, 2017, the Plaintiff withdrawn the declaration of intent to terminate the labor contract.
On January 17, 2014, the Intervenor’s disciplinary personnel committee deliberated twice on the 16th day of the same month and the 21th day of the same month, and thereafter, “the Plaintiff committed sexual harassment through physical contact by taking advantage of the status of a superior officer, who is a socially weak (which is currently enrolled in a university and is not definitely employed as an intern employee) and then violated Article 105(10), (13), (2), and (4) of the Intervenor’s rules of employment, and Article 49(1) of the Intervenor’s ethical rules.
“A decision was made to dismiss the Plaintiff as a ground for disciplinary action, and on June 26, 2017, notified the Plaintiff of the dismissal.
F. The Plaintiff filed a request for review on July 2, 2017, but the Intervenor’s disciplinary personnel committee for the review on July 13, 201.