In a case where the validity of a retrial cannot be recognized due to a serious defect in the review procedure for a disciplinary action which has a defect in the procedural violation, whether the defect in the disciplinary action is cured (negative)

The procedure of review on a disciplinary action is a kind of disciplinary action, which is entirely conducted along with the original disciplinary procedure, and the legitimacy of the procedure should also be determined on the whole of the disciplinary procedure. Therefore, even if the violation of the procedure is discovered in the original process of a disciplinary action, if the procedure is supplemented in the process of a retrial, the defect of the procedure is cured, but if the procedure of review is not fully implemented or it is impossible to recognize the validity of a retrial due to a serious defect

Article 30(1) of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Da29358 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3182), Supreme Court Decision 96Da23627 delivered on November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3750), Supreme Court Decision 98Du4672 delivered on March 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 790)

Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Young-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Port Trade Union Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Magsan, Attorneys Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2001Na10229 delivered on September 6, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The procedure of a disciplinary action is a kind of disciplinary action, which is entirely conducted with the original procedure of a disciplinary action, and the legitimacy of the procedure of a disciplinary action should also be determined in whole. Thus, even if the violation of the procedure of the original procedure of a disciplinary action is discovered, if it is supplemented in the process of a retrial, the defect of the procedure of a disciplinary action is cured (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da29358 delivered on October 26, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 96Da23627 delivered on November 11, 197, etc.). However, it is natural that the disciplinary action becomes null and void if the procedure of a retrial is not fully implemented or it is impossible to recognize its validity due to a serious defect in the procedure of a retrial.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below comprehensively adopted the evidence adopted in its judgment and decided that the defendant's dismissal on April 24, 200 was decided by the personnel committee. The plaintiff's dismissal of the plaintiff's request on May 2, 200. The defendant's disciplinary committee dismissed the plaintiff's request on May 12, 200. The defendant's disciplinary action against the executive of the union can be decided by the resolution of the representatives' meeting, and the disciplinary action against the plaintiff may be requested within seven days from the date of receiving the notice of disciplinary action. The defendant's written statement of statement was prepared before the deliberation of the disciplinary action. The defendant's disciplinary committee's dismissal of the defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff's violation of the above provision was without any error in law, and the defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff's rejection of the disciplinary action's rejection of the plaintiff's request to the plaintiff. The defendant's rejection of the above disciplinary action's rejection of the plaintiff's request to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from the case or purport, and it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)