A. Whether a disciplinary dismissal disposition can be deemed a justifiable ground on the ground that there is a ground corresponding to the provision on dismissal of disciplinary action (negative)

B. Whether the collective agreement or rules of employment provides that the person subject to disciplinary action shall be given an opportunity to present his/her argument, and whether the person subject to disciplinary action shall be given an opportunity to present his/her argument in the collective agreement or rules of employment, except as otherwise provided (affirmative)

(c) In the case of the above 'B', the case holding that the person subject to disciplinary action notified by telephone 2 days prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee had been conducted with a considerable period of time to prepare the vindications and explanatory materials.

A. The justifiable grounds under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act refer to a disciplinary dismissal, which means that a worker is responsible to the extent that the worker can not continue his/her employment contract under the social norms. Thus, a disciplinary dismissal dismissal disposition cannot be viewed as a justifiable ground, and considering the specific circumstances, there is a justifiable ground for the disciplinary dismissal disposition only when it is acknowledged that there is a justifiable ground in the above meaning.

B. The collective agreement or rules of employment stipulate that if a member intends to take disciplinary action, the person subject to disciplinary action shall be given an opportunity to present himself/herself, and the date, time and place of the disciplinary action shall be notified to the person subject to disciplinary action with a reasonable period for preparing explanations and explanatory materials, unless otherwise provided.

(c) The case holding that, in the case of paragraph (b) above, even if he notified the fact of holding the disciplinary committee by telephone two days before the disciplinary committee was held, the person subject to the disciplinary action was made with a considerable period of time to prepare a vindication and explanatory materials.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da20428 decided Oct. 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 1273) (Gong1991, 2816), Supreme Court Decision 91Da39559 decided Mar. 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1304), Supreme Court Decision 90Da8077 decided Jul. 9, 1991 (Gong191, 2112)

Plaintiff et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and two others

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Coal Corporation (Attorney Gyeong-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na28394 delivered on July 5, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on macro-Evidence, that the plaintiff was absent from work for 21 days between February 198 and April 3 of the same year, and the plaintiff was absent from work for 20 days or more between the three months, and therefore, the defendant Corporation constitutes Article 7 of the Criteria for Disciplinary Action against the Person who was absent from work for the defendant Corporation to the plaintiff on June 13 of the same year. In addition, Article 28 of the collective agreement of the defendant Corporation provides that when the defendant Corporation intends to impose disciplinary action against the union members, the union and the person shall be given an opportunity to present his opinion. The defendant Corporation notified the plaintiff of the holding of the disciplinary committee by telephone around June 4, 198 and notified the plaintiff of the holding of the disciplinary committee to the plaintiff on June 6 of the same month, and thereafter the plaintiff was present and made a statement at the retrial procedure on July 15 of the same year by the plaintiff's request for retrial, so the plaintiff did not provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary procedure of this case.

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding that the plaintiff was absent from office for 21 days during the period from February 1988 to April 2 of the same year, and there is no error of law due to violation of the rules of evidence and misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation, as alleged in the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the "justifiable reason" of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act means that there is a reason to be responsible for the worker to the extent that the labor contract can not be continued by social norms. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for the disciplinary dismissal disposition, and it can be said that there is a justifiable reason for the disciplinary dismissal disposition only when it is deemed that there is a justifiable reason in light of specific circumstances.

However, although the judgment of the court below states that the disposition of disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff is justifiable in the absence of special circumstances, the court below does not decide that the disposition of disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff is justifiable in the absence of grounds for disciplinary dismissal. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances leading up to the ground for disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of the right to disciplinary dismissal as pointed out in the plaintiff's theory, since it recognized that the plaintiff was responsible for a labor contract to the extent that the plaintiff cannot continue to engage in the labor contract by social norms, and in light of the degree of the relevant misconduct.

The collective agreement or rules of employment provide that when a disciplinary action is to be taken against a member, the person subject to the disciplinary action shall be given an opportunity to present himself/herself, and even if there are no special provisions regarding the time and method of the notification, the notification of the date and place of the disciplinary committee with a reasonable period to prepare a vindication and explanatory materials for the person subject to the disciplinary action, as otherwise alleged in the lawsuit. However, in relation to factual relations recognized by the court below lawfully, the notification made on June 4, 198 by the plaintiff, who is the person subject to the disciplinary action, had a considerable period to prepare a vindication and explanatory materials, it cannot be argued that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)