Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through evidence 3-2, evidence 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, evidence 14 through evidence 20:

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a company running the life insurance business, etc., and the plaintiff is a person who was employed by the defendant on January 9, 1984 and worked as the head of the old corporation's business office, etc. and was punished by the defendant on October 25, 2006 as follows.

B. Issuance of a transfer order, etc. against the plaintiff

(1) From February 2, 1999, the Plaintiff was working as the head of the Defendant’s U.S. Corporation. On November 5, 2001, the Defendant was issued a transfer order on November 6, 2001 upon the closure of the former U.S. Corporation’s business office. On February 26, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the transfer order with the Daegu District Court. However, the Daegu District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 13, 2004 (Seoul District Court 2003Gahap3236). While the Plaintiff appealed to the Daegu High Court, the Daegu High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 4, 2005 (Seoul High Court 2004Na37355). The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 31, 2005.

B. On the other hand, from April 4, 2002, the Plaintiff began to receive treatment due to depression, etc. from the spirit of the Hospital for the Human Estate of Gyeyang University. The Plaintiff submitted to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service a written petition demanding industrial accident compensation, for which the Plaintiff suffered physical and mental harm by issuing an unfair order of transfer, etc. on October 2, 2002, but the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s depression did not constitute occupational accident on January 2003.

C. Suspension from office against the plaintiff

(1) From March 8, 2003 to March 14, 2003, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a medical care certificate for sick leave and a medical care certificate for sick leave as of March 17, 2003 to March 21, 2003. However, on the ground that the medical care is possible, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain approval from the Defendant for sick leave on the ground that the medical care was available, and the Plaintiff was absent from work without permission as of March 10, 2003 and March 17, 2003. < Amended by Act No. 6810, Mar. 10, 2003; Act No. 6813, Mar. 17, 2003>

⑵ 원고는 2003. 3. 13. 08:50경 피고의 대구법인영업국 사무실에서, 길이 약 1m 가량의 차트용지롤봉을 집어들고서 사무실 내에서 왔다 갔다 하면서 사무실 바닥을 쿵쿵 소리가 나도록 내리치고, 사무실 유리문을 나가면서 위 봉을 이리저리 휘둘러 위력으로 법인영업국 국장인 소외 1과 영업국 차장인 소외 2 등의 업무를 방해하였고, 원고의 업무방해행위를 제지하고 대화를 나누기 위해 원고의 팔을 잡아 영업국 내 국장사무실로 가려던 소외 1, 2에게 소외 3 등이 있는 자리에서 “어, 이새끼 봐라, 사람치네, 나를 쳐 폭행이다, 이 자식아, 개새끼, 좆같은 새끼, 씨발놈아, 어디 때려봐라 때려봐, 뭐 이런 놈들이 다 있어“라는 등으로 큰소리로 말하며 공연히 소외 1, 2를 모욕하였다. 위와 같은 행위로 인하여 원고는 2003. 5. 30. 업무방해 및 모욕죄로 기소된 후 2003. 11. 10. 대구지방법원 2003고단5197호 로 벌금 100만 원을 선고받았다.

(1) The plaintiff filed a criminal complaint on the ground that "the plaintiff's act of disturbance on March 13, 2003, which was committed by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, was assaulted by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 at the time of interference with and insult of the duties of the above Breamble, and the defendant was accused of the injury. However, on April 30, 2003, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were subject to the disposition of "the crime was committed" by the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office 2003 punishment No. 26746. In addition, the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint on the ground that "the non-party 4, 5, 3, 6, and 7, who is an employee of the defendant's Daegu Business Office, damaged the plaintiff's reputation by inserting the plaintiff's act of disturbance on March 13, 2003 at the defendant's internal bulletin board." However, the above employees were subject to the disposition of conviction by the District Prosecutors' Office in Daegu 2003.

x) The plaintiff was engaged in verbal abuse to superior officers at the time of his/her work as the head of his/her business office. On June 27, 2001, the plaintiff suffered bodily fighting, such as flabing the flab and pushing the body of each other while carrying out business disputes with the non-party 8, the subordinate staff of his/her former office at the old US office around 19:30 on June 27, 201.

(v) the Defendant’s work hours of officers and employees under the Defendant’s organization and business division have been in force from January 1, 1995 to 08:30, and the Plaintiff, on June 17, 2002, took place 15 times until December 11, 2002, including the Plaintiff’s unauthorized removal from the work place at around 14:0 to 16:00, and the Plaintiff was dismissed on March 11, 2003, including the Plaintiff’s refusal to take part in work at around 08:45, 8 times in March 2003, including the Plaintiff’s refusal to take part in the work criteria for half-yearly assessment in April 102 (retail / DB).

⑹ 원고는 2002. 8.경부터 2002. 11.경까지 사이에 피고와의 소송에서 증거로 제출할 목적으로 피고의 영남법인 직원들인 소외 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 등으로부터 “피고가 희망퇴직을 회유 또는 강요하였고, 희망퇴직을 하지 않는 사람에게는 고과 등 인사상의 불이익을 주었다”는 취지의 사실과 다르거나 과장된 내용의 확인서에 서명을 받았다.

⑺ 이에 피고는 2003. 3. 29. 업무방해, 직원들에 대한 폭행, 업무지시거부, 근무지 무단이탈, 상습지각, 소속부서장에 대한 무고 등을 이유로 원고에 대하여 정직 6월의 징계처분을 하였다. 이에 대하여 원고는 피고를 상대로 대구지방법원에 징계처분의 무효확인 등을 구하는 소를 제기하였으나, 대구지방법원은 2004. 4. 13. 원고에 대한 징계사유가 대부분 인정된다는 이유로 원고의 청구를 기각하였다( 대구지방법원 2003가합11268호 ). 이에 원고가 대구고등법원에 항소하였으나, 대구고등법원은 2005. 5. 4. 원고의 항소를 기각하였고( 대구고등법원 2004나3742호 ), 그 판결은 2005. 5. 31. 확정되었다.

D. The Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's disposition of non-approval of medical care for the plaintiff

(1) On May 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, claiming that the Defendant’s retirement pressure, such as issuing an unreasonable transfer order and taking a disciplinary measure, etc. against the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant’s personal destruction and taking of Maternal Matern was caused by the Defendant’s employees. Accordingly, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service approved the Plaintiff’s medical care period from July 29, 2003 to January 24, 2004 by applying for the period of the medical care from July 25, 2003 to January 24, 2004. After that, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of the medical care to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service as of January 24, 2004, but the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service rejected the Plaintiff’s application.

D. On February 1, 2007, the Seoul Administrative Court filed a lawsuit against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service to revoke the revocation of the approval for the postponement of medical care. On February 7, 2004, the Seoul Administrative Court accepted the Plaintiff's claim on the ground that the Plaintiff's infeasia was not equipped with symptoms, and that the Plaintiff's infeasia was in a state where medical effects could have been expected by continuously receiving medical treatment (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Gudan1834). Accordingly, the Seoul High Court appealed on August 23, 2007 (Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu7354), but the Seoul High Court dismissed the appeal by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu7354), and its judgment became final and conclusive around that time

On the other hand, according to the result of the appraisal commission and the fact-finding inquiry with respect to the director of the KITol University, which was adopted by the court of this case, the plaintiff's uneasiness appeared to have occurred through the combination of environmental factors (a conflict with the defendant) and the characteristics of the plaintiff's character as of September 2006, which is the time when the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff was taken. As long as the symptoms continue, continuous medical treatment is required for a prolonged period of time.

E. Disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff

On October 25, 2006, when the plaintiff argued the validity of the disposition of postponement of medical care by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, the defendant disciplinary action against the plaintiff on the ground that "(i) damage the trust of the same fee, interfered with the business of the same fee, interfered with the business of the same fee, (ii) has committed an illegal act causing criminal prosecution, (iii) has failed to work attitude and record, and is not likely to be improved, and (iv) has continuously and repeatedly asserted the fact that has already been finalized in the lawsuit, etc., and thus impairing the company's reputation and credit." (hereinafter "the dismissal of this case").

F. The content of the personnel regulations of the Defendant regarding the dismissal of the instant case is as follows.

Article 28 (Grounds for Dismissal from Office) Where a member falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the member may be dismissed from office:

(i) the person whose service record or capacity to perform duties is deemed significantly poor; or

Shedic diseases or health obstacles are deemed to be unable to perform the duties;

Abstract Where a person who receives accident compensation or insurance benefits under the Labor Standards Act or the Industrial Accident Compensation Act as an occupational injury is recognized to be unable to perform his duties due to his injury or disease.

(v)in the case where a decision of disciplinary dismissal is made by the disciplinary committee pursuant to the reasons for disciplinary action prescribed in these Rules;

Article 37 (Principle of Disciplinary Action) (1) A company may observe the workplace discipline and punish its members for the purpose of protecting the common interests of the company and its members.

Domen Members shall not be subject to any disciplinary action except in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.

Article 38 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) Any company may take disciplinary action against any member in the following cases:

(i)An offence which constitutes a criminal prosecution has been committed;

r. Do governor’s pledge or corporate regulations or any speech or behavior contrary to the duties of duty, thereby impairing the internal order or impairing the company’s honor or credit.

【Referencely, by intention or gross negligence, or negligence, causes disability or dispute, or serious damage to the company;

⑹ 회사의 정당한 업무지시를 태만히 하거나 소속부서장의 직무상 명령에 항거 또는 불복한 경우

⒁ 고의로 타사원의 업무행위를 방해하거나 태업 및 태업을 선동한 경우

⒂ 무단결근이 연속 3회 이상이거나, 지각, 조퇴를 통산하여 연간 20회 이상인 경우

(16) If the employer’s attitude or performance record is extremely poor and there is no room for improvement.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The term “period of suspension of business for the medical treatment of occupational injury or disease” under Article 30(2) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) includes “the period of suspension of business for the medical treatment of injury or disease”. Although the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service did not accept an application for postponement of medical treatment for the Plaintiff’s illegal dismissal, the Plaintiff was unable to suspend business. However, even at the time of the dismissal of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s symptoms were continued, and the treatment was performed after being isolated from the Defendant, and there is a possibility that the symptoms might be improved. Therefore, at the time of the dismissal of the instant case, the dismissal of the instant case is null and void as a dismissal in violation of Article 30(2) of the former Labor Standards Act.

B. Considering that the Plaintiff sustained suffering from disease, such as anxiety, the instant dismissal is invalid as a dismissal that deviates from the discretionary power of disciplinary action.

3. Whether the dismissal of this case violates Article 30(2) of the former Labor Standards Act

A. The purport of restricting the dismissal of an employee under Article 30(2) of the former Labor Standards Act is to absolutely protect an employee from a threat of his/her position during the period of loss of the labor force due to an occupational accident and the period of 30 days thereafter, which would be adequate to recover the labor force. Therefore, even in cases where an employee is under treatment due to an occupational injury, etc. but is under normal work without suspending his/her business, or where it is deemed necessary to suspend his/her business for medical treatment due to an occupational injury, it does not constitute the period of suspension limited to the dismissal of an employee (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu321, Aug. 27, 191).

B. While the Plaintiff did not suspend his work at the time of the dismissal of the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff worked normally for the Defendant. Therefore, the dismissal of the instant case cannot be deemed to be “retirement during the period of suspension of business.”

C. In addition, ① the instant judgment only revoked the disposition of the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Corporation without approving the Plaintiff’s application for postponement of medical care until February 24, 2004. ② The Plaintiff began to receive medical treatment such as depression from February 2002 around the time when the Defendant was issued a transfer order to the Daegu Corporation Business Bureau, until October 25, 2006, which was the date of dismissal of the instant case, for four consecutive years. ③ The Plaintiff was working as the Defendant’s employee for the said four consecutive years, and had committed acts such as non-performance, interference with business, and repeated the act of denying the Defendant’s employees without permission, and repeated the act of denying the transfer order and the suspension order, which was found justifiable by the court, and brought various lawsuits, complaints, etc. against the Defendant. In light of the above, the instant dismissal cannot be deemed to have been “the period during which the suspension of medical care is required”.

4. Whether the dismissal of this case is invalid because of excessive disciplinary action

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 6-1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 21 through 25, and Eul evidence Nos. 30, and the purport of the whole pleadings:

(i)an offence in respect of which the Commission’s personnel are free from charge or criminal prosecution;

On March 29, 2003, the Plaintiff reported false facts to the investigation agency that Nonparty 14 testified as a witness during the process of the revocation of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, Daegu High Court 2004Na3742, which asserted the validity of the suspension of office against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years for the period of eight months due to a crime of false accusation against the Daegu District Court 2005Da76566, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years. The Plaintiff appealed and appealed, but all of the appeals were dismissed (Seoul High Court 2006No789, Supreme Court 2006Do5753).

Do Governor's attitude and job performance poor

㈎ 원고는 2003. 3. 29. 정직처분을 받은 이후에도 2004년 1회, 2005년 19회, 2006년 4회 등 24회의 지각을 하였고, 위 가.항 기재와 같이 무고죄로 처벌받으면서 구속된 기간인 76일 동안 결근하였으며, 그 이외에도 2005. 1. 20., 2005. 2. 2., 2005. 2. 3. 무단결근하였다. 또한 업무시간 중 외출 승인을 얻지 않고 일방적으로 통보한 후 하루에도 수차례 외출을 하였다.

㈏ 원고는 피고가 지시한 고객대응력 강화, CRM실천, 리스크관리, 지점 사무관리 등의 업무수행을 지속적으로 거부하여 2004년부터 2006년까지 최하위 업무평가인 “D"평점을 받았고, 개인정보 보호 및 영업기밀 누출차단을 위한 ”보안서약서“를 제출하라는 피고의 지시를 거부하였다. 원고는 위와 같이 피고의 업무지시는 거부하면서 근무시간 중에 사무실의 복사기, 복사용지, 프린터 등을 이용해 피고와 피고의 직원들에 대한 고소, 소제기 등을 위한 서류를 작성하였다.

【Act detrimental to the honor and credit of the company

From 2003 to 2005, the Plaintiff continued to make a false assertion that, even after having filed various complaints, accusationss, accusationss, and lawsuits with the Labor Relations Commission, the Labor Office, and the court, etc., “The Plaintiff did not have committed any act such as misappropriation or assault and obstruction of business against the Plaintiff, the Defendant was subject to unfair disciplinary measures against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s employees assault the Plaintiff.”

(b) Markets:

(1) The above acts of the Plaintiff are acts falling under Article 38(1) through (3), (6), and (14) through (16) of the Defendant’s Personnel Regulations, and all of them can be deemed grounds for disciplinary action.

In the event that an employee’s act constitutes a ground for disciplinary dismissal such as the rules of employment, the dismissal disposition taken therefrom is justified when there are grounds for the employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employee’s employment relationship with the employee should be determined by comprehensively examining and determining various circumstances such as the purpose and nature of the employer’s business, the circumstances of the workplace, the status and details of the employee’s duties, the motive and background of the act of misconduct, the impact on the company’s business order such as the risk of disturbing the company’s deceptive order, and the attitude of the past work (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu18189, Nov. 10, 199)

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition and the facts of recognition, i.e., ① even after the dismissal from the Defendant, the Plaintiff repeated acts similar to the reasons of the suspension from office, and ② the Plaintiff’s dismissal is valid when it was conducted in cases where the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s employees were responsible to the extent that it could not continue the employment relationship under generally accepted social norms, by asserting the Defendant’s refusal of performance of duties, and by filing several complaints, accusations, accusations, and filing a lawsuit against the Defendant and the Defendant’s employees, thereby obstructing the Defendant’s normal performance of duties. ③ In light of the Plaintiff’s consciousness, absence from office, and the number of unauthorized departure, the Plaintiff’s work attitude appears to exceed the number of the Defendant, who is the employer.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)