The case holding that even if a person to be disciplined was notified of 3 hours and 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the disciplinary committee, since he/she was present at the disciplinary committee and testified and presented explanatory materials without raising an objection, the defect is cured and it is also justified in the disciplinary procedure.

Although the personnel regulations stipulate that a person to be disciplined may attend the disciplinary committee or provide a written explanation to the person to be disciplined and give him/her an opportunity to explain, the case held that the above procedural defects are cured and the disciplinary dismissal disposition is justified in the procedure, on the ground that the person to be disciplined voluntarily appeared in the disciplinary committee and the person to be disciplined was submitted an explanation and evidence without any time to prepare the vindication and explanatory materials, even though he/she received notification 3 hours and 30 minutes prior to the meeting of the disciplinary committee without any time to prepare the vindication and explanatory materials.

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu16476 delivered on March 27, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, based on macroficial evidence, appeared at the meeting of this case on October 23, 1987, Article 38 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and Article 9 of the Decree of Multi-Family Housing Management Act, which provides that the plaintiff's act of excluding the above 118 members of the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Incheon for the main purpose of managing the 118 members' efficiencies apartment and its incidental facilities, and has been employed by the non-party 1 member of the council of occupants' representatives (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1 member's council") who is an organization composed of the representatives of the residents, and has committed an act of misunderstanding such as the time of original adjudication, which is against Article 9 subparagraph 1 of the Regulations on the Personnel Affairs of the non-party 1 (the plaintiff's criticism against the tenant's work order) and 4 (the plaintiff's act of excluding the above 10 members or 19 members of the disciplinary committee.

In light of the records, all of the above recognition and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

As above, the plaintiff's receipt of notice 3 hours and 30 minutes prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee without sufficient time to prepare a vindication and explanatory material. Thus, even if there is a procedural defect, the plaintiff's own attendance at the disciplinary committee and made a reply and submitted explanatory material without raising an objection that the above notice was unreasonable, so the above procedural defect is cured and the disposition of disciplinary dismissal in this case is justified in the process (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da15884 delivered on February 8, 191). Accordingly, the decision of the court below that reached the conclusion is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

The Supreme Court Decision 90Da8077 Decided July 9, 1991 cited by the theory of the lawsuit was a general company's notification to a person to be disciplined at least 30 minutes prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee, and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in which notice was given to the trade union without sufficient time to select the person who is to represent the trade union. The above argument also has no reason.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)