2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part resulting from participation by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, except the part resulting from participation by the defendant, and the remainder by the defendant.

The fact that on March 21, 2001, the date of dismissal and dismissal on June 3, 2005, the date of the above domestic business headquarters's entry of the supplementary intervenor (employee) on March 21, 2001, such as the business of manufacturing and selling cars with 32,000 regular workers at Yang Jae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and the defendant's supplementary intervenor (employee) located in the above domestic business headquarters (Disciplinary dismissal on June 3, 2005), the number of the first instance court's employees at the business branch's early branch's in the area of the Gyeonggi branch's Gyeonggi branch's Gyeonggi branch's Gyeonggi branch's 55th day on August 31, 2005, the number of which was determined on November 25, 2005, and the date of application for reexamination on November 26, 2006 (number number of National Labor Relations Commission) equivalent to the amount of Gap's wages paid on April 28, 2016.

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff investigated the actual results of the Plaintiff’s sales and sales of other vehicles by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and it is justifiable to dismiss the Intervenor in accordance with the collective agreement and the rules of employment, since the Intervenor recognized all these misconducts.

B. Facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff has a branch directly operated in each region across the country and has a dualized sales structure by which employees in charge of the business sell vehicles directly to consumers or sell vehicles through the intermediate sales process for the operators operating the sales store, and as a result of the sales performance, a sales commission of approximately KRW 200,000 per sales partner, and a sales commission of approximately KRW 80,000 per sales store operator according to the car model shall be separately determined and paid to the sales store operator (the sales commission of rocketing car is KRW 263,00,000 for the sales commission, and the sales commission is KRW 1,015,00 for the sales commission). In addition to the sales commission, the sales commission shall be paid to the sales partner fixed pay regardless of the sales commission [the sales commission received by the Intervenor from the Plaintiff in 203 is KRW 1,473,00 for the sales commission, fixed wage is KRW 29,84,00 for the sales commission, KRW 200 for each month + KRW 2000,500 for mobile.

(2) On February 27, 2001, April 21, 2001, September 12, 2001, November 14, 2001, November 14, 2004, and March 29, 2004, the head of the Plaintiff sales support team notified each branch office to inform the employees in charge of the business of giving notice to inform the employees in charge of the business, and posted a notice on the internal communication network.

(3) Before delivering most of the sales vehicles to the customer, the Plaintiff ordinary village employees installed a scaming and automobile goods, etc. with a view to being consigned to Nonparty 1’s (trade name omitted) car stores located in Ansan-si operated by Nonparty 1, and paid the expenses to Nonparty 1.

(4) On March 22, 2005, the Plaintiff was informed of the credit account books of (trade name omitted) car items store (hereinafter “instant account books”) by Nonparty 1 and the Intervenor, along with the content that “the Intervenor sold other vehicles and transferred business performance to an agency,” from an anonymous informant on March 22, 2005, the sales guidance team Nonparty 2’s e-mail.” The instant account books were prepared from 2003 to 204. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18173, Jan. 20, 2004>

According to the account books of this case, the intervenor requested to cut 36 vehicles to be cut, or install goods, and the number of automobiles by the vehicle manufacturing company is as follows.

The number of 16 12 5 12 12 51, 200 16 1,000 1,000 1,00

(5) On April 7, 2003, the Plaintiff sold Karen II to Nonparty 4 in the order of Nonparty 3’s president of the Gangbu Sales Store. However, Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., which borrowed the vehicle price of Nonparty 4, made a computerized registration of the intervenor as an actual seller, and on April 8, 2003, paid 111,010 business employees incentives to the intervenor in return for mediating Nonparty 4’s vehicle loan.

(6) From 2002 to 2004, the Intervenor’s vehicle sales performance of the Plaintiff Company, the average sales volume of business employees employed at the same time as the Intervenor, and the higher performance are as follows, and the collective agreement stipulates that the Intervenor may not be subject to disciplinary action on the grounds of poor sales performance.

(units: 57.97.3, 275/3, lower 6.3% of 2007 lower 5.5.309 3,458/3, 2003, lower 2.9 lower 2.9% of 5.5.309 3,458/3, 562 lower 2.9% of 5.5.294 14.26.4 2004, 25.5.293,191/3,546 lower 10.0% of the average points, etc. for job motivations for job applicants.

(7) On April 4, 2005, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor and the Trade Union of the fact that “to be held by the Disciplinary Committee on April 11, 2005.” On the same day, the Intervenor submitted to the Plaintiff a written waiver of statement stating that “to be present and present at the Disciplinary Committee and to be recognized as attending the Committee’s deliberation.”

(8) On April 11, 2005, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee to deliberate on the Intervenor’s “sale of 18 vehicles in other vehicles (17 vehicles in 2003, January 1, 2004)” and “the 9 vehicle operation records (the 17th, January 2004 act of selling vehicles sold by the Intervenor at a store)” and decided to dismiss the Intervenor. On April 18, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for a review on the grounds that the Intervenor’s disciplinary action was taken against the Intervenor pursuant to Article 47(2)3 of the collective agreement, Article 69(2)3 of the Rules of Employment, Article 69(j) and (f) of the Rules of Employment, Article 18(29(29) of the Rules of Disciplinary Committee, Article 18(5) of the Rules, Article 29(Settlement of Discipline) and Article 29(Settlement of Disciplinary Action).

(9) On April 25, 2005, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor and the Trade Union of the fact that “to be held by the Review Disciplinary Committee on April 27, 2005,” and the trade union requested postponement of the holding of the Review Disciplinary Committee on April 26, 2005, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor and the Trade Union of the fact that “the holding of the Review Disciplinary Committee was postponed on May 4, 2005.”

On May 4, 2005, the Plaintiff made a decision on dismissal of the Intervenor by holding two executive officers of a trade union (the president of a branch and the head of a branch office) and two members of a trade union (the president of a branch office) and the Intervenor during the attendance of the Intervenor. On May 27, 2005, the decision of the Review Disciplinary Committee was made and notified to the Intervenor on June 3, 2005.

(10) According to the data on disciplinary action taken by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1-23, Eul 1-7 each entry (including each number), non-party 2's testimony and the purport of the whole argument

C. Relevant provisions

/ Labor Standards Act

Article 5 (Observance of Terms and Conditions of Employment) Workers and employers are obligated to observe and perform in good faith their collective agreements, rules of employment, and employment contracts.

m. Collective agreement

Article 47 (Disciplinary Action)

(1) A company may organize a disciplinary committee and hold a disciplinary committee for fair and reasonable disciplinary action.

(2) A company may take disciplinary measures against any of the following cases:

3. When he has caused enormous property damage to the company by intention or gross negligence or when he has taken away goods or money of the company or its employees;

8. When the labor-management agreement is recognized.

9. Where it is subject to disciplinary action against custom.

Article 48 (Procedure of Discipline)

(1) A company shall take the following procedures when taking disciplinary action against members:

1. In the case of disciplinary action, the grounds for disciplinary action, date, time, and place shall be notified in writing to the parties and the partnership;

2. The Disciplinary Committee may attend the meetings of the Committee and two persons designated by the chairperson of the Committee.

3. The Disciplinary Committee shall provide the principal with an opportunity to vindicate in writing or orally and shall allow him/her to do so at the request of a witness.

4. A person who has been subject to disciplinary action may request a review within seven days.

5. When a request for retrial is made, the review shall be made and notified within seven days from the date of receipt. In such cases, the opportunity of presentation of the person himself/herself and the witness shall be permitted.

6. No review shall take more severe disciplinary action than the original judgment, and the effect of the original judgment’s punishment shall be suspended until the review is decided.

7. No matter decided by the disciplinary committee shall take effect if there is a defect in the disciplinary procedure falling under any of the above subparagraphs (1 to 6).

(3) Types of disciplinary action shall be as follows:

1. Warning; 2. Reprimand; 3. Reduction of pay 4. Suspension of attendance; 5. Recommendation Director; 6. Dismissal;

Provided, That where any disciplinary action other than the above may not be taken, and where the company has inflicted property damage on the company due to legitimate work during working hours, the company shall not claim the right to indemnity

【Rules of Employment

Article 69 (Disciplinary Grounds) Any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be subject to disciplinary action:

(j) Person who has been engaged in other business against the interests of the company;

(za) A person who manipulates the sales performance, such as transfer or takeover of the sales performance;

Article 70 (Categories of Discipline)

1. Dismissal: To dismiss an employee by deprivation of his status;

2. A recommended director: Where the dismissal is relevant to the dismissal, but the normal reference is recognized, he/she shall determine the date and submit resignation, but he/she shall be dismissed unless the submission of the resignation is made by the designated date.

5. Suspension of attendance: He shall suspend the attendance at work for a fixed period not exceeding 30 days: Provided, That although he retains his status as an employee during the suspension period, he shall not pay wages;

6. Reduction: The amount to be reduced in one month shall be 1/6 of the average wage per day for a period of not less than one month but not more than three months;

7. Reprimand: He shall urge in writing that the person concerned be aware of his misconduct, and shall submit a written statement of his fault.

8. Warning: To require the submission of a warning paper on the erroneous facts and to warn the future.

【Disciplinary Committee Regulations

Disciplinary Action Criteria List

In the case of dismissal at least 29 times of a disciplinary decision on disciplinary action on the level of disciplinary elements of the table item included in the main sentence, and dismissal at least once more than 29 other than that determined at 3 times, i.e., dismissal of workers at least 29 other than that of the company interest? Where a person has engaged in another business without permission, or where a person has complied with the employment of another company or has caused any trouble to the company's business due to the management of another business, a heavy punishment shall apply. Where a person has sold a sales performance for the purpose of monetary interest. Where a person has increased sales performance by transferring his/her sales

(d) Markets:

(1) The intervenor, as an employee belonging to the plaintiff company for the purpose of motor vehicle sales, sells a vehicle produced by the plaintiff company, is a basic obligation under a labor contract. The intervenor's act of selling another company's vehicle or taking monetary profits by transferring the intervenor's sales performance violates the essential and basic obligations of the business employee under a labor contract. Thus, justifiable grounds for disciplinary action are justifiable (the intervenor asserted that the intervenor received the pre-paid business know-how and that he inevitably inevitably received the pre-paid business know-how and had the other company sell the other company's vehicle in order to maintain the relationship with the customer. However, the intervenor, as the business employee, was allowed to purchase the other company's vehicle by acquiring the customers who want to purchase the other company's vehicle, is in accordance with the essential and basic obligations of

(2) The dismissal of workers is justified in cases where there are grounds for an employee's responsibility to the extent that the employee's employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms. Whether the employee's employment relationship with the employee can not continue is determined by social norms shall be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances such as the purpose and nature of the employer's business, the conditions of the workplace, the status and duty of the employee in question, the motive and circumstance of the act of misconduct, the influence of the employee's deceptive scheme on the company's business order such as the risk of disturbing the company's deceptive scheme, and the previous attitude of work (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du11630, Feb. 24, 2006

In the instant case, the Intervenor’s act is deemed to have a reason attributable to the Intervenor to the extent that it is impossible for the Intervenor to continue a labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor under generally accepted social norms, in full view of the following: (a) the number of vehicles sold by the Intervenor, among other workers who were subject to disciplinary action, is significantly larger than four; (b) the number of vehicles sold by the Intervenor, among other workers, which is the largest number of vehicles sold by other employees; (c) the number of vehicles sold by the Intervenor, even without considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff after the disciplinary action was taken; and (d) the number of vehicles sold by the Intervenor, which have contributed to the sales store of other workers, is more than the number of other workers; and (e) the number of vehicles sold by the Intervenor, which have contributed to the sales store,

(3) Therefore, a decision of review that different conclusions are unfair.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Jeong Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)