2013Na77425 Nullification, etc. of dismissal

A

B

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Gahap3492 Decided November 22, 2013

August 11, 2014

October 13, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant confirms that his dismissal against the Plaintiff on January 15, 2013 is null and void. The Defendant pays 4,000,000 won per month from January 16, 2013 to the date the Plaintiff is reinstated.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 5-11.

A. Status of the parties

1) The defendant is a corporation that runs broadcasting business and cultural service business.

2) On November 1, 1995, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant and served as a broadcasting reporter. On November 14, 201, the Plaintiff was dispatched to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “C”), a subsidiary of the Defendant, served until December 17, 2012, and returned to the Defendant again on December 18, 2012, and was dismissed on January 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

B. Circumstances of the dismissal of the instant case

1) 원고는 2012. 5. 27.경 I닷컴(http://I)을 개설하여 팟캐스트(podcast)2) 방송인 'I' 및 뉴스기사 등을 제공하였다. 위 'I'는 동영상 팟캐스트 방송인 'M', 음성 팟캐스트 방송인 'L'로, 뉴스기사는 'T', 'U', 'V', 'W'로 구성되어 있다. 원고는 2012. 5, 27.경부터 2012. 12. 17.경까지 'L'에 36회, 'M'에 16회 이상 각 출연하였다.3) 2) 원고는 2012. 12, 17. 자신의 트위터 계정(D, 트위터 계정의 명칭은 'E'이다)에 다음과 같은 내용의 글을 작성·게시하였다(이하 '이 사건 트위터 글'이라 한다).4)

Emergency, BF, G’s private interview confidential, and estimated to be reported on the day before the election. He had an interview for the news gathering team consisting of containerers of other departments, and for both days. H. He concerns over the reality of H. H. In fact, during the A.M. interview is conducted with the material of the news gathering team B’s special news gathering team, and the media reporters are directly appointed from the head of the J.m. Report Center. In fact, the social father was also found to have a special team. The social father was found to have been out of three weeks prior to the election day. It is possible to determine the possibility that B. B. Report No. 3 of the F. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. and the media reporters, not the news gathering team, but the 300 M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M.

3) On December 18, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff, who was dispatched to C, a subsidiary company, to return to the Plaintiff. On the same day, the Defendant held a personnel committee and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff as of January 15, 2013 on the grounds of “violation of the company honorary status and permitted matters” as grounds for disciplinary action, and notified the Plaintiff of the instant dismissal on January 15, 2013.

4) On January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant regarding the dismissal of the instant case. However, on January 23, 2013, the Defendant held a personnel committee to decide to maintain the dismissal of the instant case and notified the Plaintiff of the fact on the same day. 6)

C. Main provisions regarding the dismissal of this case among the defendant's rules of employment

[Rules of Employment (No. 3) and Article 4 (Maintenance of Dignity) of the Rules of Employment (No. 4) shall not commit any act detrimental to the reputation and dignity of the company, and shall observe the principles of broadcast lectures and the code of ethics, respect mutual recognition, and maintain the order of the workplace. In any of the following cases, an employee under Article 7 (Matters to be Permitted) shall be notified in advance to the head of the relevant department and the Director General in charge of personnel affairs in advance and obtain permission from the company:

3. Reduction of pay: The period of suspension from office shall not exceed six months and the monthly wage shall be reduced by 10% during that period; 4. The period of suspension from office shall not exceed 30 days and the salary for that period shall not be paid; 5. Suspension from office: Provided, That in the case of suspension from office due to a misconduct, the status of an employee shall be held for not more than six months, but he/she may not perform his/her duties, and his/her duties shall not be paid, except in the case of suspension from office due to a misconduct: Dismissal: He/she shall be released from office; 66. Where he/she falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she may be subject to disciplinary action following a deliberation of the personnel committee; 3. Where he/she violates his/her duties; 4. Where he/she causes property damage to a company intentionally or by gross negligence; 5. Where he/she divulges company secrets;

§ 72(1)(1) If a person who has been subject to a disciplinary action is dissatisfied with the disciplinary action, he may request in writing a review to the president only once, within seven days after he has received the notification of the disciplinary action. The president who has received the request for review shall make a request for review to the personnel committee;

2. Judgment on the claim to nullify dismissal

A. The parties' assertion

1) 원고, 피고가 이 사건 해고를 통지하면서 해고사유를 구체적으로 기재하지 않았으므로, 이 사건 해고는 해고사유를 서면으로 통지하도록 규정한 근로기준법 제27조를 위반하였다. 또한, 원고의 이 사건 트위터 글은 중요한 부분에서 사실에 부합하거나 사실과 다르더라도 원고가 이를 진실이라고 믿을 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 것이고, 원고가 닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연한 것은 피고 및 C에서 이를 묵인하거나 장려하여 온 것이므로, 모두 징계사유가 될 수 없다. 설령 원고가 이 사건 트위터 글을 게시하고 I닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연한 것이 징계사유에 해당한다고 하더라도, 피고는 징계양정을 함에 있어 재량권을 일탈·남용하였다. 따라서 이 사건 해고는 무효이다.

2) The Defendant Plaintiff was aware of the grounds for the instant dismissal through the notification of the personnel committee meeting. As such, the instant dismissal did not violate Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. The instant dismissal was a legitimate disciplinary action based on the grounds for the disciplinary action under the rules of employment, and cannot be deemed as a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

B. Determination as to the existence of a defect in disciplinary proceedings

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that "an employer shall notify in writing the grounds for and time of dismissal in order to dismiss a worker," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "an employer shall have the effect of written notification of dismissal in accordance with Paragraph (1) of the same Article." This is to ensure that the employer is careful in dismissing the worker through written notification of the grounds for dismissal, etc., and that this is to ensure appropriate and easy resolution of disputes arising after the dismissal by clarifying the timing and reason for the dismissal, and that the employer can properly respond to the dismissal.

Therefore, when an employer notifies in writing the grounds, etc. for dismissal, he/she shall be able to specifically identify the grounds for dismissal in the worker’s place. In particular, in the case of disciplinary dismissal, the detailed facts or irregularities that constitute the substantial grounds for dismissal shall be stated, and it cannot be deemed sufficient that a person subject to disciplinary action only requires the collective agreement or rules of employment in violation of the rules of employment (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da42324, Oct. 27, 201).

2) Determination

We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles. In full view of the facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff contributed Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 4, 6, 7, and 10 to I broadcast from May 27, 2012, and the Plaintiff prepared and posted the instant Twitter writing on December 17, 2012. The notice of the meeting of the personnel committee sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was stated as follows: "Violation of the company honorary position and permitted matters (I Contribution)," "Article 4, 7, 66 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the Rules of Employment, etc." (7) as to the grounds and grounds for dismissal of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not appear in the personnel committee’s notice of the dismissal of the Plaintiff, stating that “the Plaintiff is not subject to review” as stated in Article 2-1 of the Rules of Employment, and that “the Plaintiff is not subject to disciplinary action, etc.” (Article 4(3), 7(3), 66(6) of the Rules of Employment.

According to the above facts, the notice of dismissal of this case is stated only as "the violation of corporate honorary order and permitted matters" and there is no specific fact or misconduct, which serves as a substantial reason for dismissal, so it was determined that the notification of dismissal of this case was not enough to identify the specific reason for dismissal in the light of the plaintiff.

비록 원고가 이 사건 해고 당시 자신의 트위터 계정에 이 사건 트위터 글을 게시하고 I닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연한 것이 해고사유에 포함되었을 것이라고 짐작할 수 있었던 사정은 엿보이나, 구체적인 해고사유가 이 사건 트위터 글의 게시 및 닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송 출연에 한정되는 것인지 아니면 다른 회사명예실추 및 허가사항 위반과 관련된 사유도 포함되어 있는지 여부, 팟캐스트 방송 출연의 경우 모든 방송 출연이 해고사유가 된 것인지 여부 등을 명확하게 알기는 어려웠을 것으로 보인다. 따라서 이 사건 해고에는 근로기준법 제27조를 위반한 절차상의 위법이 있다고 볼 수밖에 없다.다. 징계사유의 존부에 관한 판단

1) The instant Twitter writing

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On December 17, 2012, from December 19, 2012, 2012, the 18th presidential election day, the Plaintiff written and posted the instant Twitter’s writing on his Twitter account. 11)

(2) On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff’s Twitter number was approximately 1.30,000 people around December 18, 2012, and the Plaintiff prepared and posted a number of comments on the implications of the instant Twitter account, including the case of the so-called “National Twitter female employees.”

(3) 팟캐스트 방송인 'H'는 2012, 12.경 여권이 대통령 선거에 영향을 미칠 의도로 G의 기자회견을 추진 중이라는 의혹을 보도하였고, 원고는 위 보도 직후 이 사건 트위터 글을 게시한 것이다. 13)

(4) On December 18, 2012, I published an article that introduces the instant Twitter published by the Plaintiff, an article that introduces the Defendant’s rebuttal content, and an article that introduces the Plaintiff’s return to the Defendant and begins disciplinary proceedings immediately. On December 20, 2012, I published an article that, on December 20, 2012, the Defendant actually conducted a interview with G and the Defendant via Rar, a special cause for cock. 15)

(5) Meanwhile, on December 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) sent the Plaintiff’s writing and image on the instant Twitter and urged the relevant authorities to take measures; (b) on the same day, the instant Twitter article was published in the “B Severe report” issued by the Defendant; and (c) January 8, 2013, the instant Twitter article was published in the “B Severe report” on January 8, 2013.

(6) On December 18, 2012, the Trama News reported the Defendant’s official admission that the Plaintiff’s Twitter of this case or the Plaintiff’s unique fact-finding of Malaysia was a fact-finding, and the Plaintiff did not yet meet G on December 19, 2012.19) Accordingly, on November 10, 2013, the Mama News reported that the Defendant raised suspicion that the Defendant would have been aided or aided by the NIS while carrying out an interview.20)

(7) 원고의 이 사건 트위터글은 '뽐뿌'(http://www.ppomppu.co.kr), '82 쿡'(http://www.82cook.com), '클리앙'(http://www.clien.net), 'AB(전 국회의원 AC의 팬카페, http://AD) 등 인터넷 게시판에 게시되었다.21)

(8) On December 16, 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) informed Malaysia at a specific place of Chudio Chudio G to the Defendant’s International Department AE to report it to the Defendant’s International Department AE to obtain approval for coverage; (b) started from 16:40 cock on December 17, 201, and arrived at Chudio Pudio on 19:50 cock on the same day; (c) on December 19, 2012, G dialogued with G at a hotel in the vicinity of Chudio, a hotel on December 19, 2012; and (d) G refused to take photographs and take notes of the contents of the conversation. 22)

(9) On January 1, 2001, RR was employed by the Defendant on February 27, 201 as a reporter and was issued on February 27, 201, and was not a container employed during the strike period of the Defendant trade union.23)

(10) On November 8, 2010, the Defendant implemented the “B Social Media Guidelines”. The above guidelines are proposing that the Defendant’s executive officers and employees should not harm the Defendant’s fairness and reliability when communicating through social media, such as personal website, tables, Facebook, and Twitter, and that their opinions can be interpreted politically even when they wish to express their personal opinions.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, Eul evidence 24-1 to 23, Eul evidence 32 and 53, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

The act of slandering a company with any content different from the truth or exaggerated contents in an open seat becomes a cause of disciplinary action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da42982, Jun. 26, 1992). Such a legal principle applies likewise to the case where a person spreads to an unspecified number of unspecified persons any content that may undermine the company’s reputation through the Twitter account, which is open to the public and is likely to spread, as in the instant case.

We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles. In light of the facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff’s special frequency reporter arrived in Malaysia Macrostum on December 17, 2012 and met G on December 19, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff posted the Defendant’s notice of the instant Twitter to the effect that the Plaintiff’s pilot’s conduct of an interview with G was in secret on December 17, 2012, and thus, it is not consistent with important facts, such as the date and time, interview subject. Furthermore, it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to have violated the Defendant’s duty to publish the instant Twitter on his own Twitter account (the Plaintiff’s act of posting the instant Twitter on December 12, 2012, which was in violation of the Defendant’s duty to open an interview with his own reputation, and thus, it constitutes the Defendant’s act of posting the Defendant’s confidential information and the content of the instant report that the Plaintiff’s act would have infringed the Defendant’s reputation.

2) I닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송 출연

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On December 2, 2002, the Plaintiff opened “A.com” (htp:/O), a personal website, at the first time, around December 2, 2002, while proceeding with “N, which is the Defendant’s proposal filing program. The Plaintiff provided “P” as an Internet broadcaster through A.com, and published the service name as “T” while gathering social I.25).

(2) 원고가 파견되어 근무한 C는 2011. 12. 2.경 스마트폰을 통해 뉴스, 예능, 교양 등 다양한 방송 프로그램을 볼 수 있는 스마트기기 전용 방송채널 'QTV'를 개국하였고, 원고는 당시 QTV 프로그램 중 'Q뉴스'의 기획 및 출연 업무를 담당하였다. 원고는 2011. 11. 14. A닷컴에 QTV와 관련하여 일반인을 대상으로 '10만 Q 기자단'을 모집한다는 안내문을 공지하였다. 위 '10만 Q 기자단'은 QTV 방송 첫 회부터 출연하였다.26) (3) C는 2012. 4. 30.경 Q뉴스를 폐지하였다. 원고는 2012. 5. 27.경 I닷컴을 개설하였고, 그 무렵부터 2012. 12. 17.경까지 팟캐스트 방송인 'T' 중 'L'에 36회, 'M'에 16회 이상 각 출연하였다. A닷컴은 현재 I닷컴의 후원 커뮤니티로 운영되고 있다.27)

(4) 원고가 출연한 닷컴의 동영상 팟캐스트 방송인 'M'는 피고의 당시 사장인 F에 관한 문제, AF 변호사의 삼성 비리 고발 사건 및 BBK 주가 조작 사건 등 사회적 이슈를 다루었고, 팟캐스트 방송 뉴스 인기순위 1, 2위를 다투기도 하였다.28)

(5) On May 19, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) around May 19, 2012, in the currency of the Republic of Korea, the media media, competition between J’s news and viewing rate; (b) said, through fake news that can be seen only M, the Plaintiff said that it would make it possible to make a national inquiry on F and J’s news programming; (c) said broadcast content as an article of “AG”. 29)

(6) On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff commenced crowdfunding to collect the production cost of M, and approximately KRW 25 million by participating 454 persons around June 14, 2012.30)

(7) C는 원고가 I닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연하는 것을 명시적으로 승인하지 않았다.31)

(8) The Plaintiff, as its actual operating team of I.com, indicates that it is the sponsor of I.com through A.com and its Twitter account, continues coverage and broadcasting.32 / [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff has no dispute as to the existence of evidence No. 6-1, 2, A. 10, 11, 21, 21, 1, 21, 1, 3-2, 3-2, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 58, and the fact-finding of evidence No. 3-2, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, and 58, as a result of the fact-finding conducted by A.

B) Determination

위 인정사실에 비추어 보면, 원고는 C로부터 'QTV'와 관련하여 필요한 범위 내에서 A닷컴을 통한 활동에 대하여 적어도 묵시적으로는 허가를 받았다고 볼 여지는 있어 보인다(당심의 C에 대한 사실조회 결과에 의하면, C는 원고로부터 닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연하는 것에 대한 보고를 받지 못하였고 이에 대하여 명시적·묵시적으로 승인하지도 않았으며, A닷컴 및 I닷컴의 존재조차 알지 못하다가 2012년 말경 비로소 언론기사를 통하여 닷컴에 대하여 알게 되었다고 주장한다. 그러나 원고가 A닷컴을 통하여 QTV의 '10만 Q 기자단' 모집을 안내하고 위 기자단이 방송 첫 회부터 출연하여 언론에 보도된 점 등에 비추어 보면, C는 QTV 운영 당시 A닷컴의 존재를 알고 있었고, 원고가 A닷컴을 통하여 QTV의 운영을 위한 활동을 하는 것을 적어도 묵시적으로 승인하였다고 보인다).

그러나 C가 'QTV'를 폐지한 이후 원고가 I닷컴을 개설하여 운영하는 것 또는 I닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연하는 것을 허가하거나 승인하였음을 인정할만한 아무런 증거가 없다(당심의 C에 대한 사실조회 결과에 의하면, C는 2012년 말경 언론기사를 통하여 비로소 I닷컴에 알게 되었다는 것이다).

또한, 원고가 출연한 방송의 빈도나 내용 등에 비추어 보면, 원고가 I닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연한 것은 대외 발표나 집회, 연설 또는 이와 유사한 행위에 해당하는 것이므로, 취업규칙 제7조(허가사항) 제1항(외부 연출, 출연 등 대외 발표를 하는 경우), 제2항(근무시간 중에 직무와 관련 없는 사항에 관하여 집회, 연설 또는 이와 유사한 행위를 하는 경우)에 해당하고, 제66조(징계사유) 제1항(사규를 위반하였을 때), 제2항 (직무상 의무를 위반하였을 때)의 징계사유에 해당한다고 판단된다.

D. Determination as to whether the disciplinary discretion has been exceeded or abused

1) Criteria for determination

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action, it is at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to abuse the discretionary power, which has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure may be deemed unlawful. If the disciplinary measure is deemed to be unlawful beyond the scope of discretionary power because it considerably lacks validity under the social norms, depending on the specific cases, the contents and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the purpose of the disciplinary measure to achieve the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for a disciplinary measure, etc., the contents of the disciplinary measure shall be deemed to be objectively unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da60890, 60906, Aug. 23, 2002). Meanwhile, if there are several suspicions of disciplinary action against workers, whether it is appropriate to take the disciplinary measure should be determined based on the overall evidence of 90Da1979, Feb. 19, 2097.

2) Determination

가) 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 트위터 글은 게시된 시점 및 그 내용 등에 비추어 보면 그 시의성이나 파급력이 현저하였고, 원고가 이 사건 트위터 글에 대하여 피고 내부에서의 징계절차 등에서 소명하는 대신 여론을 이용하는 방식의 대응을 지속적으로 시도하였으므로, 그 징계사유가 가볍지 아니하다. 또한, 원고는 I닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연한 것을 이유로 해고되었음에도 불구하고 그 이후에도 I닷컴의 기자로서 취재 등의 활동을 계속하고 있고, 을 제12호증의 1, 2, 을 제13호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고는 피고의 시사고발 프로그램인 'S'을 진행하던 중 보도 대상 기업의 관계자와 술자리를 갖고 선물을 받았다가 이를 돌려주는 등의 행위로 인하여 2005. 1. 13. 감봉 3월의 징계처분을 받았고, 그 이후 피고 내부의 공식적인 보고절차를 거치지 않고 취재 내용을 뉴스에 보도하게 하였다는 이유로 2005. 9. 22. 감봉 1월의 징계처분을 받은 사실이 인정되는 점 등도 원고의 징계양정을 무겁게 하는 사유에 해당한다.

B) However, in light of the facts and circumstances described in subparagraphs 8, 12 through 15, 17 through 19, 31 through 33, 15, 36, 15, 37, and 38 as a whole, it is difficult to recognize that the dismissal of the instant case is a serious cause for the Plaintiff to the extent that the Plaintiff cannot continue to have an employment relationship under the social norms, and rather, it is judged that the dismissal of the instant case is null and void as an unlawful disposition beyond the scope of discretionary authority, because it has considerably lost validity under the social norms.

(1) The contents of a complaint, accusation, or press reported to an investigative agency are true or true.

If there are reasonable grounds, it would be more so that disciplinary action against workers would have been deviating from discretionary power, and in particular, it would be more so more so if it is the same as a corporation with a strong public nature (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu11767 delivered on March 3, 195).

In light of the fact that the Defendant’s act of posting the instant Twitter on December 12, 2012, 18, the following day after the instant Twitter’s writing was posted, ordering the Plaintiff to cancel the dispatch order and return to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s act of posting the instant Twitter’s writing on his Twitter account appears to be the main reason for the instant dismissal. However, at the time of posting the instant Twitter’s writing on December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff did not have an interview with G. However, even if the Plaintiff’s act of posting the Twitter’s writing on December 17, 2013, it was difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of gathering G news to the Rowit special frequency on December 16, 2013, which was 3 days before the 18th presidential election day, and that it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s act of posting the instant Twit for the reason that the Plaintiff was part of the Plaintiff’s public interest, such as the Plaintiff’s Ro and the Plaintiff’s Ga.

(2) In setting the limitation between freedom of expression and protection of reputation, the criteria for review vary depending on whether a victim whose social evaluation is damaged by a third party’s certain expression is a public figure or a private figure, whether such expression concerns a public concern or belongs to a pure private sphere, etc. In the case of expression as to a matter of public and social meaning (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da69291, May 27, 2005). It is not appropriate for the Plaintiff to accurately confirm whether the Defendant had a personal interview with G prior to posting the instant Twitter, but it is not appropriate for the Defendant to accurately confirm whether the Plaintiff had a personal interview with G. However, taking into account various circumstances such as the content, method, and degree of public interest of the instant Twitter, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act of posting the instant Twitter exceeded the inherent limit of freedom of expression.

(3) 갑 제8, 12, 13, 14호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 의하면, 다른 주요 언론매체의 기자들도 원고와 같이 팟캐스트 방송을 하거나 블로그를 운영하고 있는 사실,33) 원고는 2003. 11. 18. 한국언론재단이 주최한 제2회 언론인 홈페이지 대상 공모에서 A닷 컴으로 대상을 받은 사실34) 등이 인정된다. 위와 같이 현재 기자들이 자신이 속한 언론매체의 직무 수행과 별도로 소셜미디어를 운영하면서 자신의 의견을 피력하는 행위가 광범위하게 이루어지고 있는 점, 한국언론재단이 기자들의 홈페이지 운영을 장려하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 기자들의 소셜미디어 운영은 일정한 수준까지는 개인적인 표현의 자유로서 용인되어야 한다는 사회적 공감대가 형성된 것으로 보인다.

(4) 원고가 이 사건 트위터 글을 게시하기 전 이미 다른 팟캐스트 방송인 'H'에서 피고가 대선에 영향을 미칠 의도로 G의 기자회견을 추진 중이라는 의혹을 보도하였다.

(5) 원고는 I닷컴을 개설하여 팟캐스트 방송을 제공하기 약 10년 전부터 개인 홈페이지인 A닷컴을 운영하면서 인터넷 방송인 'P'를 하였다. 또한, 원고는 2012. 5. 27.경부터 I닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연하였는데, 피고는 2012. 12. 17. 원고가 자신의 트위터 계정에 이 사건 트위터 글을 게시한 다음날인 2012. 12. 18. 인사위원회를 개최하여 비로소 원고가 닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연한 것을 문제 삼았고, 그 전까지는 I닷컴의 운영 또는 방송 출연 등과 관련하여 징계절차에 착수하려고 한 사정이 전혀 보이지 않는다.

(6) According to Gap evidence Nos. 18-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 19, Eul evidence Nos. 35, 37, and 38, the defendant's AI political director and AJ reporter reported the issue of concurrent office of National Assembly members on June 3, 2013, and they reported that K National Assembly members were paid separate wages while holding concurrent office as a counsel, 35) the defendant confirmed and corrected the facts on June 4, 2013, 36) the information disclosure center for transparent society for the defendant's 19th National Assembly member on Jan. 17, 2013, and notified the defendant about the concurrent office status of K National Assembly member's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's lawyer's attorney-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's 10th of the above 7th National Assembly member's.

(7) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 15, 17 and Eul evidence Nos. 15, the plaintiff raised reputation as a professional reporter for exploration and accusation through N, "S, etc., which is the defendant's program, and 41) The plaintiff obtained three tape and tape tape reports made at the time of 1997, and first reported "X file for the donation" in the defendant's news center on July 22, 2005. In this regard, on the ground that the plaintiff discovered and reported the suspicions of illicit trade in the press and political rights, the plaintiff won special prize for the Korean reporters' association on February 22, 2006, and received 37 occasions special prize from the Korean reporters' association on the ground that he reported the suspicions of illicit trade in the press and political rights, and reported the prize of the Korean national sports club that was the subject of the press, and after joining the Korean national sports club by filing a complaint against the defendant 42).

(8) 피고는, 원고가 법원으로부터 가처분 결정을 받은 이후에도 피고의 출근명령을 무시하고 닷컴의 팟캐스트 방송에 출연하는 등 자성하지 않았다는 취지로 주장한다.

Article 31, 32, 33, and 36 of the Evidence (including a serial number) as follows, comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged. In other words, the Plaintiff received a provisional disposition order from the Seoul Southern District Court on June 27, 2014 that the Plaintiff temporarily determines the Defendant as an employee under 2014Kahap109 from the Seoul Southern District Court on a temporary basis; 44) the Plaintiff served in the Defendant's office on July 7, 2014 in accordance with the above provisional disposition order. After the Defendant's access was obstructed; 45), the Plaintiff appeared to have been in office 201 of the Defendant's office, and the Plaintiff did not have any equipment such as computer and telephone, etc. at all. In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have desired to be reinstated to the Defendant, and the position of the Defendant, who appears in the process of the instant lawsuit, was justifiable, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff did not neglect the Defendant's order to work.

(9) Even if the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action on the grounds of the disciplinary action is more minor than the instant dismissal, the Plaintiff may take the ground of sexual reflection, and it seems that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant may endeavor to recover the fairness and reliability of public broadcasting, which is a common task.

E. Sub-committee

This case's dismissal against the plaintiff is not only a procedural violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, but also a substantive violation beyond the scope of discretion of disciplinary action, and thus, the dismissal in this case is null and void.

3. Determination on the claim for wage payment

A. As long as the dismissal of the instant case is null and void, the labor relations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant continue to exist effectively, and even if the Plaintiff was unable to actually provide labor due to the dismissal of the instant case, it is due to the Defendant’s body of acceptance, which is an employer. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant continued to work for the Plaintiff from January 16, 2013 to the time the Plaintiff is reinstated.

is liable to pay the amount equivalent to the wages which can be paid in advance.

B. Moreover, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff received wages exceeding KRW 4,00,000 each month before the dismissal of the instant case, and the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 4,00,000 per month from January 16, 2013, the following day of the instant dismissal to the date of reinstatement, as sought by the Plaintiff.

C. Meanwhile, according to the evidence Nos. 31 and 55-1 of the evidence Nos. 31 and 55, the plaintiff and the employees dismissed from the defendant (hereinafter "AK, AL, AM, N, AO, etc.") requested the defendant to temporarily designate the status as workers on March 14, 2014 during the lawsuit of this case, and applied for provisional disposition seeking temporary wage payment. The Seoul Southern District Court temporarily decided that the plaintiff was in the status as workers until the judgment of this case was rendered, but rejected the plaintiff's application for wage payment, 4,460,00 won was paid as wages to the plaintiff on July 25, 2014, and 47 was also recognized as temporary provisional disposition Nos. 460,000 won, and the defendant also paid wages to the defendant as wages to the plaintiff on the same date, despite the above provisional disposition No. 404,60,000 won was paid as temporary provisional disposition No. 2484.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in its conclusion. Therefore, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the deputy judge;

Judges Kim Gung-sik

Judges Lee Young-young

1) A’s transcript (a certified copy of the corporate registry) No. 1.

2) 팟캐스트(podcast)는 애플의 아이팟(iPod)과 방송(Broadcasting)을 결합하여 만든 신조어로,

News, drama, and other contents in the form of a audio or video file via the Internet network;

service that provides means a service.

3) Evidence B No. 1 (Reference Materials related to Plaintiff’s Disciplinary Action).

4) Evidence B No. 1 (Reference Materials related to Plaintiff’s Disciplinary Action).

5) Evidence No. 2-1 (Notice of Results of Personnel Committee), Evidence No. 2-3 (I) and Evidence No. 5 (Personnel Committee)

No. 6 (Minutess of Personnel Committee), No. 7 (Notice of Results of Personnel Committee).

6) Eul evidence 8 (Notice of Holding the Personnel Committee), Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10

1) Minutes, B. (Notice of Results of Personnel Committee) No. 11

7) Eul evidence 4 (Notice of Holding of Personnel Committee).

8) Evidence A No. 2-1 (Notice of Results of Personnel Committee) and Evidence B No. 7 (Notice of Results of Personnel Committee)

9) No. 6 (Minutess of Personnel Committee) of Section B.

10) evidence 10 (Minutess of personnel committee) of Section B.

11) Evidence B No. 1 (Reference Materials related to Plaintiff Disciplinary Action).

12) Evidence B No. 1 (Reference Materials related to Plaintiff Disciplinary Action).

13) Evidence B No. 2-1 (I) and Evidence B Nos. 14 and 22 (B severe weather alerts of December 18, 2012)

14) Eul evidence 2-1 to 3 (each article).

15) Evidence B No. 2-4 (I Articles);

16) Eul evidence 2-4 (I Articles).

17) evidence B Nos. 14 and 22 of Eul (the severe weather alerts B dated December 18, 2012)

18) Eul No. 18 (Special Weather Alerts B dated January 8, 2013)

19) Gap evidence No. 4 (Mama News Articles).

20) Evidence A No. 5 (Korean Warman).

21) Eul evidence 24-1 to 23 (each major Internet bulletin board bulletin board and the response of NAN).

22) Eul evidence Nos. 16 (R personnel record card), Eul evidence No. 21 (Requirements for Use of R's flight aircraft), Eul evidence No. 32 (R's statement)

u) ;

23) Eul evidence 16 (RR personnel record card).

24) Eul evidence 53 (B Social Media Guidelines).

25) Evidence No. 6-1 (Public Notice List), Evidence No. 6-2 (Public Notice Contents), Evidence No. 21 (cite the I website)

Articles)

26) Evidence No. 10, A No. 11

27) Evidence B No. 1 (Reference Materials related to the Plaintiff’s Disciplinary Action), evidence B No. 3 (Internet Press Report Data), and No. 29

A.com screens.

28) Eul evidence 3-1 (Internet Press Report Data)

29) Eul evidence 33 (hereinafter referred to as "AG")

30) Eul evidence 3-2 (Internet Press Report Data). crowdfunding means crowing from China.

The term "the gathering of funds" means the gathering of funds by utilizing social media, Internet or other media.

means food.

31) Results of fact-finding with respect to C at the trial of the party, the purport of the entire pleadings.

32) evidence Nos. 25 (Plaintiff Twitter propy), Eul evidence No. 27 (Korea Communications Commission Report Data), Eul evidence No. 28 (I)

Ept. 29, Eul evidence 29 (A.com screen), Eul evidence 30 (I Articles related to I reporter's activities), Eul

58 Nos. 58 (I broadcasting video cans screen pictures)

33) 갑 제12호증의 1(데일리 풋볼리스트 팟캐스트), 갑 제12호증의 2(씨네타운 나인틴 팟캐스

T) Evidence A No. 13-1 (AH’s Military World), Evidence A No. 13-2 (Blogs), and Evidence A No. 14-1

(독설닷컴 블로그), 갑 제14호증의 2(고전적 하루 팟캐스트), 갑 제14호증의 3(현장일기 팟캐

(st) the Corporation;

34) Evidence Nos. 8-1 (Art. 8-1) and Evidence No. 8-2 (the list of winners).

35) A’s No. 18-3 (New News News Report Related to the Oral News Report).

36) Eul No. 38 (No. 38 news articles related to corrective reports).

37) Evidence Nos. 37 (Notice on the homepage of the Information Disclosure Center) and evidence No. 38 (Nos. 37 related news articles) of Eul.

38) Evidence No. 18-2 (New News Information and Communications Reports) No. 18-2 (New News Information and Communications Reports).

39) A’s No. 18-3 (New News News Report Related to the Oral News Report).

40) Evidence A No. 19 (Personnel Order), Eul No. 35 (Personnel Committee Minutes).

41) Nos. 15 ( female news)

42) Evidence No. 15 ( female news articles) and Evidence No. 17 (National Daily News Articles) of the Republic of Korea

43) Eul evidence 15 (Plaintiff's personnel record card).

44) Evidence No. 31 (Written Decision)

45) Evidence No. 32 (Art. 32) , Evidence No. 33-1 (media articles) , and Evidence No. 33-2 (Moly Examination)

Private theory).

46) Evidence No. 36-1 through 5 (the photograph of the person reinstated before and after the lapse of 201, respectively).

47) Gap evidence 31 (Seoul Southern District Court Order 2014Kahap109).

48) Eul evidence 5-1 to 6 (Payment Record of Benefits).