2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is that of “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Relevant Provisions”; and (b) such reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Among the grounds that the defendant's refusal to answer in writing is not a violation of the company's regulations, and 6. The defendant's refusal to answer in writing is not a violation of the company's regulations, 5. The rest of 1. to 7.8.25.206 is not a verbal abuse and abusive behavior against female employees, and 8. The reasons are already submitted and completed, and thus cannot be subject to disciplinary action again for this reason. Thus, the defendant is subject to the disciplinary action in this case merely because the plaintiff refused to answer in writing without any grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, the disciplinary action in this case is not a disciplinary action that is not stipulated in the company's rules.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

First, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to the above facts, the disciplinary action in this case for which the plaintiff seeks a confirmation of nullity is "two months (2 months from September 21, 2009 to November 20, 2009)" and it is apparent that two months have already elapsed since the period of disciplinary action was two months or more. Thus, the claim for a confirmation of nullity of the disciplinary action in this case is nothing more than the claim for confirmation of legal relations in the past. Since the claim for confirmation of nullity of the disciplinary action in this case is not valid and appropriate means to obtain confirmation as to the invalidity of the disciplinary action in this case in order to eliminate the current rights or legal status or risks or apprehensions as to the present rights or legal status, it does not have any interest in confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da4011 delivered on April 11, 1995).

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Jae-dae (Presiding Justice)