2010Kahap13 Disposition of Retention of Members' Status

****************)

Address omitted

Attorney**,***

******************

Location omitted.

Representative****

Law Firm****

Attorney***

April 15, 201

1. The motion of this case is dismissed.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

The applicant for a new hearing shall be temporaryly determined to have the status of the respondent as a member.

1. Summary of the grounds for application;

On February 23, 2010, the applicant is a member of the respondent. On February 23, 2010, the respondent neglected internal control in the state of being subject to a three-year disciplinary action, and made a resolution of expulsion (hereinafter referred to as "the expulsion disposition of this case") on the ground that the executive department, threats to the chairperson, and slanders the applicant during the period of disciplinary action.

However, the applicant does not fall under the grounds for disciplinary action because he did not perform the above acts, and even if he did the grounds for disciplinary action, the choice of the most harsh expulsion out of the grounds for disciplinary action is in violation of the principle of proportionality, and thus, the instant expulsion disposition is unlawful and invalid, and in order to prevent the applicant from causing significant damage due to the existence of the above expulsion disposition, the applicant sought an issuance of provisional disposition such as the statement

2. Determination

In a case where there is a dispute as to whether the fact-finding and the expulsion disposition, which are the basis of the expulsion disposition against the applicant, are reasonable, the validity of the expulsion disposition through the lawsuit on the merits. Nevertheless, in order to suspend the validity of the expulsion disposition against the applicant and to issue a provisional disposition that requires him to perform his duties as a member of the respondent, such provisional disposition shall obtain the satisfaction extremely similar to the winning in the merits, in light of the fact that such provisional disposition has been obtained from the applicant who has received the expulsion disposition in accordance with the rules and regulations of the respondent, it is objectively apparent that it is null and void because it is remarkably illegal or unjust, and it is necessary to sufficiently explain that it is necessary to take the measures for the relief of the applicant's right as soon as the applicant suffers a significant loss not recoverable due to the expulsion

First of all, according to the records, the respondent's resolution on disciplinary action for three years of the regime was adopted on the ground that the applicant brought the application list on June 24, 2009 and interfered with the activities of the respondent, such as tear, etc. on the written consent for the merger, and the applicant filed a request for reexamination on July 10, 2009, but the application for reexamination was dismissed on July 15, 2009 and the disciplinary action for three years of the regime became final and conclusive.

According to the above, even if the expulsion disposition of this case is unlawful and invalid as alleged by the applicant, in light of the following: (i) the applicant had already been suspended from the right as a member from July 15, 2009 to July 14, 2012 due to the above legislative disposition at the time of the expulsion of this case; and (ii) even if the applicant loses his status as a member, the applicant may not be discriminated against the benefits due to the general binding force of the collective agreement even if he loses his status as a member, it is difficult to readily conclude that the measure for the relief of the applicant’s right is urgently necessary due to the expulsion disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case is dismissed as it is without merit due to lack of vindication of the necessity of preservation. It is so decided as per Disposition.

April 15, 2011

The presiding judge, assistant judge and police officer;

For judges:

Judges Park Jong-young