logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.09.24 2014구합72477
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that is established on December 29, 1967 and ordinarily employs more than 56,00 workers and operates a motor vehicle manufacturing and sales business.

An intervenor is a person who joined the plaintiff on February 12, 1986 and worked in the plaintiff's Ulsan factory, etc. by April 2014.

B. On December 27, 2013, the Intervenor was sentenced by the Ulsan District Court to a fine of KRW 7,00,000 to a fine of KRW 7,00 for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the Intervenor was ordered to complete a sexual assault program for 40 hours (No. 2013 Gohap249).

According to the judgment, the Intervenor’s criminal fact was that “Around 6:35:00 a.m., on August 23, 2013, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the said victim by rhumbing her left hand, i.e., why she was frighted, and she was frighted on the window railing at a bank located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter referred to as “the instant indecent act by force”).”

On May 15, 2014, the Busan High Court rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal (2014No53).

In addition, the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On the other hand, on March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee for the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor was convicted in the first instance trial due to the instant indecent act by force, on the grounds that the Intervenor was subject to disciplinary action against the instant indecent act by force, and based on Article 64 subparag. 10, 19, and Article 17 subparag. 4 and 14 of the Rules of Employment.

The Disciplinary Committee decided on March 26, 2014 with respect to the Intervenor, and the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “the Intervenor was dismissed on March 26, 2014 according to the decision of the Disciplinary Committee” (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

arrow