1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 1996, the Plaintiff was working for Defendant Bank B while working for Defendant Bank on November 30, 201, and the Plaintiff was from Defendant Bank as follows 3-C.

The Defendant Bank was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment and was subject to a ipso facto retirement disposition (hereinafter “instant ipso facto retirement disposition”) on the ground that it falls under Article 28(4) of the Personnel Management Regulations of the Defendant Bank.

B. The collective agreement and personnel regulations of the Defendant Bank related to the instant case are as shown in the attached Form.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 8-1-3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The instant disposition is null and void for the following reasons alleged by the Plaintiff.

Article 47 of the collective agreement provides not only disciplinary dismissal but also ipso facto retirement under Article 28 subparag. 4 of the Personnel Regulations. Even if it is not so, since the grounds for ipso facto retirement and the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 28 subparag. 4 and subparag. 1 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Personnel Regulations are the same as those under Article 11 subparag. 1 (c) of the Personnel Regulations, the Defendant bank should have implemented the procedures for granting the right to request personnel information in accordance with the disciplinary procedure stipulated in Article 47 of the collective agreement in issuing the instant ipso facto retirement disposition.

Nevertheless, since the defendant bank did not comply with this, there are procedural defects in the instant disposition.

B. Article 28 subparag. 4 of the Personnel Management Regulations and Article 11 subparag. 1 (c) of the Regulations refer to “a person who is sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment” refers to “a person who is sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment.” Thus, the Plaintiff who is sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment does not constitute a reason for

C. Even in the case of a suspended sentence, the instant disposition constitutes a “person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment” under Article 28 subparag. 4 of the Personnel Management Regulations, and thus, is a de facto dismissal. Therefore, justifiable grounds exist.