부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.
On December 1, 1989, the Plaintiff was dismissed as of August 13, 2015 while serving as the crew at the business office B (hereinafter “instant business office”). The Intervenor was established on August 9, 1983 and was established on December 9, 1983, and used 9,100 full-time workers in Seocho-gu, Seoul to operate the subway construction, operation, etc.
After September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff, at a restaurant near the instant place of business, did not go back to the house after having a club fee and alcohol, and returned to the instant place of business without return to the house, and returned to the Plaintiff at around 23:10, the Plaintiff made verbal abuse to the Deputy Director of the Operational Plan, who solicits the Plaintiff to return home to the instant place of business. On the following day, at around 2:40, the Plaintiff sent the Plaintiff to the Deputy Director of the Working Board with a knife and a sck for a disturbance (hereinafter “instant misconduct”). However, the Plaintiff explained that the reporter was the act of drinking caused by the Plaintiff’s drinking, and sought understanding from the police, and the police was dismissed.
On September 24, 2014, from September 24, 2014 to November 201, the Intervenor conducted fact-finding, and sent a notice of attendance of the ordinary committee to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2014.
On January 8, 2015, the ordinary punishment committee held on January 8, 2015 violated Article 11 of the Code of Ethics, which provides that the plaintiff shall not act such as harming the reputation of the participating company or causing property damage to the property of the participating company, or harming the observance of basic honor among the executives and employees, imprudent behavior, or harming other executives and employees, etc. In the event the plaintiff's misconduct is contrary to the part of the employee in violation of subparagraphs 1, 2, and 4 of Article 45 of the Code of Ethics among the grounds for disciplinary action under the personnel regulations of the participating company, when the plaintiff's misconduct is contrary to the part of the employee in violation of the provisions of subparagraphs 1, 2, and 4 of Article 45 of the Code of Ethics; when the service order is disturbed, the status of the employee and the body or body of the participating company.