beta
Text
1. Each of the appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is dismissed.
2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the intervenor added a decision on the matters asserted in the court of the first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, this case is quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
The Intervenor’s assertion that ① the Intervenor’s withdrawal of KRW 3 million was made at the request of D, as a branch office, with a view to attracting customers, and thereafter withdrawing KRW 19 million, the remainder of KRW 19 million was made at the request of D. Thus, the Intervenor’s intention of embezzlement and illegal acquisition cannot be deemed to exist, considering the following: (i) the Intervenor’s withdrawal of KRW 22 million was made at the request of D; (ii) the embezzlement amount is limited to KRW 22 million; (iii) the Plaintiff paid the full amount of damages; and (iv) the request for disciplinary action according to the Disciplinary Council of the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation of Korea was made at the first six months of suspension from office.
Judgment
A disposition of dismissal is justified when there are reasons for the employer to the extent that the employer cannot continue the employment relationship with the worker concerned under the social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employment relationship with the worker concerned under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances such as the purpose and nature of the business, the circumstances of the workplace, the status and details of the duties of the worker concerned, the motive and background of the act of misconduct, the influence on the company's business order such as the risk of disturbing the corporate deceptive order, the past attitude of the work
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10455 delivered on May 28, 2002). Gamba, the facts acknowledged earlier, and evidence Nos. 21, 22, 45, 46, and 50.