부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in the trial room
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion H and D’s testimony of the first instance court is credibility in itself, and according to this, the Intervenor’s complaint against C, namely, a series of misconduct in the process of pursuing personal interests by abusing the position of the chairman of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Committee, which is, the Intervenor’s complaint against C, is made for the purpose of acquiring unjust interests by registering the business entity he recommended as the Plaintiff’s delivery company, by pressureing C, and by acquiring unjust interests. The Intervenor’s complaint is sufficiently recognized during the process of pursuing unjust objection rights.
When reflecting the Intervenor’s motive of such an accusation and crime, etc. in the determination of the instant disciplinary action, the determination of the instant disciplinary action is justifiable.
B. Determination H and D delivered KRW 2,30,000 to the intervenors in order to prevent the Intervenor from disclosing the recording file with respect to the recorded conversations between the Intervenor, H, and D around April 5, 201 through around April 5, 201.
Although the intervenor testified to the effect that “the tape recording on the above conversation was submitted as Eul No. 1, the intervenor submitted the tape recording on the above conversation to the effect that it is difficult for the intervenor to submit the tape recording as evidence even though he received KRW 2,30,000 from H and D on the condition that the tape recording is not open to the public, it is difficult to understand that D also made an amount of KRW 1,00,000 to the intervenors in the plaintiff labor union sub-committee in the first instance trial.
When the chairperson of a labor union enters the labor union office, he/she seems to have a standing room.