In a case where the phrase “cendenda” as prescribed by the rules of employment has the meaning of a letter of apology or rebuttal and thereby orders an employee to submit a letter of vision, whether it is a legitimate order for business (negative)

In a case where the rules of employment provide that an employer may order a worker who has committed an accident or misconduct to submit a written statement of the time when he/she committed the accident or misconduct, if the written statement does not merely mean to report the situation of the case, but further means a criminal offense or reflect that includes “the content of a crime against one’s own misconduct” in relation to an accident, etc. that occurred in labor relations, it is a forced act as to the internal ethical judgment guaranteed by the Constitution, which infringes on the freedom of conscience, and thus, such rules of employment are invalid in accordance with Article 96(1) of the Labor Standards Act as it violates the Constitution, and thus, the employer’s order to submit a written statement of the end

Article 96(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 19 of the Constitution

Plaintiff

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu23834 decided April 14, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where the rules of employment provide that an employer may order a worker who has committed an accident or misconduct to submit a written statement of the time when he/she committed an accident or misconduct, if the written statement does not merely mean to report the situation of the case, but further means a criminal offense or reflective nature that reflects and commits his/her misconduct with respect to an accident that occurred in a labor relationship, etc., it constitutes an infringement of the freedom of conscience as a compulsory enforcement on the ethical judgment within the Constitution guaranteed. As such, such rules of employment are in violation of the Constitution, and it is invalid pursuant to Article 96(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and the employer’s order to submit a written statement of

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged facts as stated in its holding, and determined that Article 47 (1) of the Personnel Regulations of ○○ City Welfare Center for the Disabled of the Disabled (hereinafter “instant welfare center”) operated by the Social Welfare Foundation for the Disabled of the Korea (hereinafter “instant welfare center”) provides that “In case where an employee’s act does an insignificant act that may violate the organization’s order and not cause for disciplinary action, the head of the department may pay attention along with a warning letter to the relevant employee so that the employee may correct the pointed out and give an opportunity to reflect the organization’s order.” In light of the above provisions, the time notice does not merely include a mere report on the circumstances of the case, but also includes a crime against and against his mistake regarding the accident that occurred in a labor relationship, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the time notice may not be deemed a legitimate order of the employer, and thus, even if the employee failed to comply with the order to submit the time notice, it cannot be deemed a ground for disciplinary action or a disciplinary action.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justifiable.

Supreme Court Decision 90Da12991 delivered on December 24, 1991, etc. cited in the grounds of appeal, cannot be seen as pertaining to the weekend, which refers to a criminal charge or a rebuttal, and thus, it is not appropriate to apply the case to this case.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of judicial precedents or incomplete hearing, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)