(a) In cases where a collective agreement or rules of employment provides that a person subject to disciplinary action shall be notified of the date, time and place of the disciplinary committee or shall be given an opportunity to vindicate by the disciplinary committee, whether the disciplinary action takes effect without following such procedures (negative);

(b) The case holding that if the person subject to disciplinary action voluntarily appeared in the personnel committee and raises an objection to the procedure for the notice of attendance without raising an objection to the procedure, the defect in the procedure for which the personnel committee did not grant considerable time to the person subject to disciplinary action for preparing the vindication and explanatory materials;

A. Where a collective agreement or rules of employment explicitly states that the disciplinary committee must notify the disciplinary committee of the date, time, and place of the holding of the disciplinary committee, or provide an opportunity to vindicate by the disciplinary committee, this is to ensure the objectivity and fairness of disciplinary action, and a disciplinary action taken without following such procedures cannot be acknowledged as effective in principle.

(b) The case holding that if the person subject to disciplinary action voluntarily appeared in the personnel committee and raises an objection to the procedure for the notice of attendance without raising an objection to the procedure, the procedural defects for which the personnel committee did not grant considerable time to the person subject to disciplinary action for preparing the vindication and explanatory materials are cured.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da8077 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2112) 91Da13731 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 231) 91Da22070 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 283) B. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6563 delivered on July 24, 1992

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and 1 other

[Defendant-Appellee] Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na1432 delivered on January 30, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal

1. In a case where the collective agreement or rules of employment explicitly stipulate that the disciplinary committee must notify the disciplinary committee of the date, time, and place of the disciplinary committee, or that the disciplinary committee shall provide an opportunity to vindicate, this is to ensure the objectivity and fairness of the disciplinary action and that the disciplinary action, in principle, shall not be recognized. In this case, according to Article 8 of the Operational Rules of the Personnel Committee for Daegu Factory (Evidence No. 5) of the defendant company, the committee shall notify the employees subject to the disciplinary committee of the date, time, time and time of the disciplinary committee, and provide the employees with sufficient opportunity to vindicate. According to the records, the plaintiff 2 appears to have been notified of the holding of the disciplinary committee from the state during the day when the disciplinary committee is opened, and the plaintiff 1 appears to have been notified of the holding of the disciplinary committee by indoor broadcasting.

Therefore, the defendant personnel committee cannot be deemed to have given considerable time to the plaintiffs to prepare the vindications and explanatory materials while taking disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiffs who are subject to disciplinary action.

However, even if there is any defect in the above procedure, it is obvious that the plaintiffs have made sufficient justification without raising an objection to the purport that it is unfair because they voluntarily attended the personnel committee and gave notice of attendance, so the defect in the above procedure shall be deemed to have been cured. Ultimately, the disciplinary dismissal disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have been erroneous in the procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6563 delivered on July 24, 1992).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and there is no reason to discuss.

2. The facts acknowledged by the court below based on adopted evidence are as follows.

In other words, the plaintiff 1 retired from the office of the first 0th 5th 20th 1st 6th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1st 5th 6th 6th 1st 5th 5th 1st 5th 5th 1st 5th 5th 1st 5th 5th 1st 5th 5th 1st 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 196th 1st 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 196th 1st 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 196th 1st 5th 1st 5th 5th 198.

As to the above plaintiffs' acts, the court below supported the disciplinary dismissal disposition of this case on the ground that it constitutes not only the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 69 subparagraph 14 and subparagraph 21 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company but also the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 69 subparagraph 14 and subparagraph 21 of the Rules

The above fact-finding and decision of the court below shall not be erroneous in the misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation due to the violation of the rules of evidence, as pointed out in the theory of appeal. The arguments are without merit.

All appeals are 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 on the bench.