2016 Gohap8031 Nullification of dismissal

1. Red ①

Suwon-si

2. B B:

Essung simuls

[Defendant-Appellant]

A Stock Company

Suwon-si

Representative Director;

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

May 12, 2017

July 7, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiffs on September 2, 2016 confirms that the dismissal is null and void. The Defendant:

Plaintiff 1: From September 3, 2016 to the Plaintiff’s reinstatement, Plaintiff 3,327,275 won per month; and

Second, from September 3, 2016 to the time of the plaintiff's reinstatement, 2,798, 142 won each from September 3, 2016 to September 3, 201

D. D. D. D.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a company running transportation business or repair business, etc., and the plaintiffs are the persons on September 2, 2016.

Before the disciplinary dismissal, the employee was a driver of the defendant company route bus.

B. Reasons for the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action

1) On August 30, 2016, the Defendant held a disciplinary committee against the Plaintiffs and held the following:

Article 61 subparag. 5 and Article 61 subparag. 55 of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant as to each of the grounds for disciplinary action

on September 2, 2016, a resolution to dismiss a person as a person on September 2, 2016 and to dismiss him/her on September 2, 2016

The notice was given to the High Court (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action").

[Plaintiff 1]

(7) On June 1, 2016, crew members, who had been operating a bank on which passengers using a route vehicle gets in the vehicle, reported it as lost goods at their competent business office and kept in custody on June 3, 2016: A person subject to disciplinary action, who had been kept in his/her business office on June 3, 2016, once again saw the lost goods in his/her custody on his/her own and without permission, and embezzled the lost goods from possession.

[Plaintiff B]

On August 3, 2016: 08: 54: (4) around 54: (1) around 10: (2) around 2016, the passengers aboard the stop did not report the shopping bags in the vehicle and occupied them without permission at the competent business office.

2) The Plaintiffs filed a petition for retrial regarding the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action, and the Defendant filed a petition for retrial.

On September 22, 2016, the review disciplinary committee held to dismiss the plaintiffs' request for review;

In the notice of the result of disciplinary action (Re-examination) against the plaintiffs at the time, "Defendant Company shall return to it"

Re-employment plan for a trade union to which he/she belongs (at least a certain period after his/her resignation);

- Transfer of a contract officer - Telecommunication after two months from the date of dismissal.

company's re-employment plan for the company's "re-employment plan" is intended to comply with the thickness, 2016.

9. By the end of 26.26, response was sent to the company and the direction was changed.

C. Rules of Employment of this case

Article 65 of the collective agreement of the defendant company at the time of the dismissal of the disciplinary action of this case

The dismissal clause provides that "under the rules of employment, the rules of employment of the defendant company shall apply."

The main contents of the part related to the instant case in the rule are as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “instant action”).

'Business Regulations'.

57(Disciplinary Action) If an employee commits an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, he shall be subject to the deliberation of the disciplinary committee. 1. The employee who has violated the regulations of the company following the date of these Rules and the obligations on the part of the company in respect of his duties shall be dismissed if he falls under any of the following subparagraphs: 5. In a case where the company’s property and money and valuables are used for private purposes without permission of the company, or where the lost goods of the passengers are embezzled without reporting to the company (the embezzlement of stolen goods) 5.

[Ground for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 4, Eul

No. 4, 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12-1, 2, and 13

Evidence No. 15-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 16, Eul evidence No. 17-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 20

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the claim to nullify dismissal

A. Relevant legal principles

applicable to grounds for dismissal of the rules of employment, etc.

An employment relationship with social norms, not naturally justified by a higher disposition.

(1) If there are circumstances attributable to an employee to the extent that the employee may not continue

shall be justified, and the employment relationship with the worker concerned shall continue by social norms.

the purpose and character of the business, the conditions of the workplace;

The status of the employee, the contents of the duties, the motive and circumstances of the act of misconduct, and this person.

on the basis of the risk that corporate order will be disturbed, and in the past, the impact on corporate order such as the risk of disturbing corporate order;

(1) Determination shall be made by comprehensively examining the various circumstances, such as the attitude of work (and on the other hand)

Supreme Court Decision 2008Da2008Da***** Decision *) Decided July 24, 2008.

B. Determination as to Plaintiff 1’s claim

1) Plaintiff Red ① Claim

Plaintiff 1’s Red ① refers to a bank with the permission of the director of division division division division division division division division.

In the case of real, there are many cases where the owner does not find for a long period of time, and the defendant company

The management of lost articles has been very weak, and the above bank also brings about such articles with the knowledge of such delivery.

There is no legal action against the defendant corporation, any legal action taken against the defendant corporation

In other words, the grounds for the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action do not exist or they are employed by social norms.

It does not constitute a reason to be responsible for the employee to the extent that the employee could not continue.

(ii) the existence of grounds for dismissal;

The whole of the statements, images, and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 of No. 1, 1, 2, and 2

According to the purport of the Defendant Company’s 7th June 1, 2016, passengers using route buses.

C. A company of the defendant who operated the bus at the time.

Finding the bus engineer's discovery and bringing it to the head office B business office of the defendant company

(1) On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff Red ① is kept in custody at the B business office around 30:30.

The fact that the above bank appears to have been included in its inner part;

The fact was found and returned through a black image that was verified by the report of the owner of a bank and confirmed by the owner;

The facts are recognized. According to this, the acts of Plaintiff Red ① and the above acts of this case

'Article 61 subparagraph 5 of the Rules of Employment' without reporting to the company the lost goods of the passenger.

(Embezzlements) in the case of possession (Embezzlements) and theft in and outside the place of business of subparagraph 55 of the same Article;

It is reasonable to see that the act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action of “Embezzlement” ( Plaintiff Red ①)

Park third, the director of the division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division of division.

It does not constitute larceny or embezzlement under subparagraph 55, but also theft or embezzlement under subparagraph 55 above.

However, even if so, the above act of Plaintiff Red ① is based on the above grounds.

shall be deemed to constitute grounds for disciplinary action for embezzlement, theft, etc. of possession under subsection (1).

(A) the Corporation shall have the effect of making such

3) Determination as to whether a disciplinary discretion has been exceeded or abused

all the statements and arguments mentioned above 3-1, 2-1, 3-2 and the whole purport of the pleading

for a long period of time any of the following circumstances known to him/her, i.e.

claim that it would result in many cases, but in the case of the above bank, it is not from the date of loss.

and outside of the framework, even if the defendant's lost property is not properly managed;

Even if a mistake was made for an old time in custody, such an act may be justified.

in the process of returning the bank, only to conceal the fact that there is no error in finding the bank;

In light of the fact that the disciplinary dismissal of this case continued to have an employment relationship by social norms.

(b) has a reason to be responsible to the worker to the extent that such

The degree of disciplinary action is too harsh and unreasonable.

C. Determination as to the Plaintiff B’s claim for Park B

1) Plaintiff B’s assertion

On August 6, 2016, the date on which the instant disciplinary dismissal ground for Defendant B’s gambling B occurred:

On the following day, it is expected to continue to work, and at that time, it is thought that the report on the loss was made.

로 원고 소유 자동차 트렁크에 보관하였으나 위 사실을 깜빡하고 신고하지

in light of the fact that there are only those which were not available and that the lost person has agreed to pay the damages.

The grounds for the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action do not exist or the employment relationship is limited by social norms.

It does not constitute a reason to be responsible for the employee to the extent that it can not belong to.

(ii) the existence of grounds for dismissal;

The evidence and evidence mentioned above, Eul evidence No. 8-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 9, video and pleadings

According to the purport of the whole, Plaintiff B, who completed bus operation, LbC, August 6, 2016: 46 :

In addition, only the shopping bags have been used as charges and shopping bags, and only the shopping bags have been used.

In fact, the back of the driver's seat shall be opened to his own car parked next to the place of business.

The following driving after inserting the shopping bags, and the filing of a report by the holder of the shopping bags;

The CCTV image confirmed that the fact that the above fact was revealed and returned can be recognized.

F. According to this, the act of Plaintiff B’s act is subject to Article 61 subparag. 5 of the Rules of Employment of this case.

'Where the lost goods of the passenger are embezzled without reporting to the Company (the crossing of possession)

Colonel) The grounds for the disciplinary action of "thief, theft, and embezzlement" inside and outside the place of business under section 55 of the same section.

It is reasonable to view that it would be reasonable.

3) Determination as to whether a disciplinary discretion has been exceeded or abused

Evidence mentioned above, evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence No. 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

the following circumstances, i.e., reporting a loss on the following day:

business with the same shopping margin on the day of the case, although the business was carried on with the same day as the above shopping margin;

without filing a report despite entering into a lawsuit, and kept in a ridge between passenger vehicles;

깜빡하였다고 하나 위 영상 등으로 확인된 바에 의하면 승용차 뒷좌석에 보

관되어 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, 신고하는 것을 깜빡하였다고 주장하면서도

The author made a statement that the content was dissatisfyed as a source of taxation, and the motive for the statement was made.

In light of the very doubtful point of view, the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action is socially accepted.

Where there is a reason for the responsibility of the worker to the extent that the employment relationship cannot be continued.

The degree of the disciplinary action is too harsh, and the degree of the disciplinary action is deemed to be unfair.

(2).

D. Determination of the plaintiffs' common assertion

As to this, the plaintiffs shall not be less than necessary on regular bus routes by the defendant company at the time.

A trade union and conflict to prevent excessive input of a bus owned by another corporation;

For this reason, the plaintiffs who are executive officers of the trade union

Unlike the previous cases, the disciplinary dismissal has been very rarely carried out, and the defendant shall retire at the time after his death.

After the expiration of the period, the reason for the disciplinary dismissal in this case was also revealed.

Reasons why an employee is responsible to the extent that the employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms.

Inasmuch as it cannot be viewed as “A”, only the descriptions of evidence Nos. 10, 11

As alleged by the Plaintiffs, the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action was derived from the conflict between trade unions.

The defendant's proposal for re-employment is insufficient to be recognized as being, and the defendant's proposal for re-employment

on the sole ground that the proposal was made, thereby making it possible to continue the employment relationship.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for wages

As seen earlier, the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action is valid, and the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action is dismissed.

Without need to examine further the part of the plaintiffs' claim for wages on the premise that it is invalid.

No reason exists.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Dong-chul

Judges Gindu

Judges Shin Young-young