(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.20 2016누31199

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.20 2016누31199

부당해고구제재심판정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following 2.1. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The following shall be added to the part to which the judgment of the court of first instance is to be added to 6th 15 or less of the grounds for the judgment:

The plaintiff asserts that according to the evidence Nos. 10 B or 10 in the trial of the party, the members of the committee at the time of the meeting of the disciplinary committee of this case were in violation of the law of disclosure of voting.

According to the rules on punishment, etc. of the Intervenor in the Health Team, the Disciplinary Committee shall first proceed with the deliberation on the disciplinary case and then implement the voting procedure. The part pointed out by the Plaintiff is that the members state their opinion on the determination of disciplinary action, etc. against the Plaintiff during the deliberation process, and the Chairperson, after the deliberation process, declares that “I will decide a disciplinary decision by vote,” and then it is recognized that the voting by a bearer voting method has been conducted by the Plaintiff, the mere fact cited by the Plaintiff does not constitute an error in the procedure of the

In the case of other disciplinary actions conducted on the same day, the Plaintiff asserts that the same disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff was made in the same manner as that of the other disciplinary action. However, considering not only difference between the above case and the details of the resolution, but also the fact that the voting procedure against the Plaintiff was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions, unlike the above case, even if based on the statement of evidence No. 10, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

The following shall be added to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, 11th of the 17th of the 117th of the grounds for the judgment.

The plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.05.15 2018누77038

-대전고등법원 2016.04.07 2015누12845

-서울고등법원 2017.11.29 2017누68587

-서울고등법원 2017.01.11 2016누58064

-대전고등법원 2020.05.07 2019누12867