[징계처분취소][공1991.2.15.(890),611]
Whether Article 10 of the Addenda to the Agricultural Cooperatives Act violates Article 10 of the Addenda to the Agricultural Cooperatives Act by providing that each provision of the personnel regulations and the guidelines for dealing with disciplinary affairs of agricultural cooperatives shall be automatically dismissed without an approval of the National Federation Chairperson within six months from the date of indefinite suspension (negative)
According to Article 10 of the Addenda of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the former director and the regular director of a cooperative are required to appoint the president with the approval of the National Federation Chairperson, and according to the personnel regulations and the disciplinary action guidelines, indefinite suspension disposition does not perform indefinite duties until reinstatement order is issued and automatically dismissed within six months without the reinstatement order. Thus, a indefinite suspension disposition, which is one of the disciplinary action, is classified into grounds, effects, etc. from the disposition of dismissal under the above personnel regulations, which is regulated separately by the above personnel regulations, and therefore, it does not constitute a violation of Article 10 of the above Addenda, merely because the above personnel regulations, etc., which provide for such disciplinary action, provide that the National Federation Chairperson may not obtain approval from the National Federation Chairperson.
Article 10 of the Addenda of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act ( December 31, 1980)
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Lee Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Chungcheong-si
Seoul High Court Decision 89Na42974 delivered on August 14, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
With respect to the First Ground:
According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the instant disciplinary action based on the above personnel regulations was lawful on the ground that the Defendant Union adopted the articles of association (Evidence No. 2) prepared pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and that the matters concerning employees of each unit of association are in accordance with the practices prescribed by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation Act, and that the provisions, such as personnel regulations, disciplinary action, etc. prescribed by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, were enacted as the personnel regulations and disciplinary action, following a resolution by the board
However, in full view of the contents of evidence No. 20 (Articles of Incorporation) as stated by the court below and the purport of testimony and pleading of witness or mineral type, the defendant union can find that it has legitimate articles of association (Enforcement Date No. 16, Mar. 16, 1987) as a result of the general meeting at the time of disciplinary action. Such fact-finding by the court below is erroneous, but matters concerning employees except for those stipulated by the articles of association pursuant to Article 71 (1) 1 and (2) of the defendant union's articles of association shall be prescribed by regulations or regulations and shall follow the same rules or regulations as determined by the National Federation. Thus, disciplinary action against the plaintiff shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below because the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff was taken in accordance with the above regulations of personnel affairs or disciplinary action regulations of the National Federation No. 20 (the above judgment of the court below). However, although the plaintiff union's legal representative did not have any influence on the resolution of the general meeting or the court below's resolution of disciplinary action No. 10 (the above).
The judgment of the court below on this point is just in its conclusion.
Ultimately, as pointed out in the judgment of the court below, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the rules of evidence, omission of judgment, omission of reasoning, etc.
With respect to the second ground:
The judgment of the court below is justified in its reasoning that the personnel committee of the defendant union provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to make a vindication and submit explanatory materials by attending the committee to make a resolution on disciplinary action against the plaintiff. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the law of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out therein.
With respect to the third point:
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the disciplinary action of this case is not an act of excessively deviating from or abusing the right to discipline, on the ground that the plaintiff, in violation of the accounting rules and prepared a false document in writing several times in violation of the accounting rules, and that the money related to the sales business was unfairly treated and embezzled by using a deposit account in another person's name, and that the interest was embezzled. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, the violation of the rules of evidence, or the incomplete hearing
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)