logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.04.03 2018누72804
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. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Procedural illegality of the instant dismissal 1) Intervenor’s rules of employment (hereinafter “Rules of Employment”)

(2) Article 84 of the Rules of Employment does not stipulate the grounds for the dismissal of the instant case as the grounds for the dismissal of a disciplinary action. Therefore, the grounds for the dismissal of the instant case are not specified on the grounds that the Intervenor issued a written disciplinary action upon dismissal of the Plaintiff as of June 15, 2017 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

B. Even if it is possible to take disciplinary action based on the rules of employment, the Plaintiff did not abuse or exercise his/her authority on his/her duty and did not engage in scambling conduct (Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Rules of Employment). Since the Plaintiff did not interfere with the performance of his/her duties by neglecting or neglecting his/her duties (Article 83 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment), the instant dismissal does not

C. The grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff are not significant violations to the extent that the grounds for disciplinary action under each subparagraph of Article 84 of the Rules of Employment are against the Plaintiff. ② Restriction of the company’s non-permission-free profit activities is more strict than that of the public official’s profit-making activities, ③ it is unreasonable to limit the Plaintiff’s profit-making activities. ④ The Plaintiff’s quality of goods supplied by the partner company through the transaction with the Intervenor is improved and the cost reduction is reduced and bring profits to the intervenors. ⑤ The dismissal of the instant case is considerably unfair in light of the following: (a) The Plaintiff did not take any disciplinary action against the other officers and employees who committed serious misconduct; and (b) the dismissal of the instant case was considerably unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the first instance court.

arrow