1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for nullification of dismissal and the claim for nullification of the reduction of salary shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who joined the Defendant on January 13, 1995 and was on October 1, 2009 and was on duty to promote.

B. On October 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant disposition of dismissal” was against the duty of fair neutrality in election and violation of internal regulations (hereinafter “instant disposition of dismissal”) (hereinafter “instant disposition of dismissal”) and “an neglect of personnel management” (hereinafter “instant disposition of dismissal and the said reduction of salary”) for six months, including the instant disposition of dismissal and the instant disposition of salary reduction.

C. On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on December 23, 2015.

On January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the judgment of the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission.

On April 14, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial trial tribunal on the grounds that “the instant disciplinary action is defective in the disciplinary procedure and excessive disciplinary action,” and rendered a new trial decision to recognize that the instant disciplinary action is an unfair disciplinary action, and the Defendant reinstated the Plaintiff to his/her former job and paid the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of his/her dismissal (hereinafter “instant new trial decision”).

E. On January 25, 2018, the appellate court of the instant case (Seoul High Court 2017Nu12245) rendered a judgment dismissing dismissal that “the instant disciplinary action was deemed unlawful on the grounds that it was deemed that the instant disciplinary action was unlawful in light of the serious procedural defect, and even if the instant disciplinary action did not exist due to the absence of procedural defect, it is not appropriate to take a disciplinary action, and thus, it is lawful to take a disciplinary action.”

The defendant appealed against this and appealed, but the above judgment was dismissed on May 11, 2018.