logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.03.22 2016가합901
해고무효확인
Text

1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff on February 19, 2016 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

2. The Defendant on February 2, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a management body established to revitalize the operation of the commercial building-type B, located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s electric safety supervisor and the elevator safety manager, who was dismissed as of February 19, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff’s election of the Chairperson on May 29, 2015 (hereinafter “instant election”) conducted on May 29, 2015 by the Plaintiff.

(2) While carrying out the relevant work, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the voting rights of D, a corporation closed after liquidation in around 2003, were delegated to E, the representative of the Defendant, and that E used the voting rights of D, a corporation that had been delegated as such in the instant election, to elect F as the Defendant’s president. (2) The Plaintiff discovered that the voting rights of D, a corporation that had been oldly extinguished, were delegated to E, and actually exercised during the process of selecting the Defendant Chairperson, but the Plaintiff was suspected that any of the Defendants engaged in the instant election by forging the proxy voting rights of D, a corporation.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff informed one of the sectional owners of the Defendant that “the proxy power of Defendant D was forged,” and caused the sectional owner to file a petition with the prosecution against the charge of forging and exercising the above proxy power and obstructing the instant election affairs following a forged proxy power exercise. 4) According to the above petition, the prosecutor summoned the Plaintiff, F, and G attorney who was the president of the Defendant at the time of the instant election.

The prosecutor's office has, as a result of internal investigation, delegated the voting rights of G Counsel who is the representative representative of the defendant to E in 2003, by G Counsel who is the representative of the defendant, to E, and the voting rights of D which is so delegated.

arrow