Where dismissal is made for the same reason after removal from office, the validity of removal from office

The dismissal from position is a provisional measure that prevents a worker from engaging in duties due to temporary absence of a position in order to prevent anticipated occupational trouble if the worker continues to perform his/her duties in the future in the future in cases where the worker is prosecuted for a criminal case, and where the worker is dismissed for the same reason as the reason for the dismissal from position after he/she was dismissed for any reason, the original removal from position shall lose its validity (in cases where the worker is dismissed for the same reason after the dismissal from position, but is reinstated by the Labor Relations Commission's order to reinstate, the amount of wages after the removal from position should be calculated on the basis of wages in normal working conditions that do not take into account the removal from position).

Article 27(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) (see current Article 30(1) of the Labor Standards Act)

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu148 delivered on December 26, 1978 (Gong1979, 11620) Supreme Court Decision 79Nu279 delivered on January 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 13649) Supreme Court Decision 84Nu677 delivered on March 26, 1985 (Gong1985, 642)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju Metropolitan City Dong-gu Medical Insurance Association (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na4991 delivered on May 23, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below found that the defendant union dismissed the plaintiff, who is its employee, from his position on August 22, 1992 on the ground that the resolution of disciplinary action was required due to the violation of the rules on removal from his workplace, impairment of dignity and service, but dismissed on September 8, 1992 on the ground that it is identical with the reason for removal from position on September 8, 1992. However, the court below determined that the plaintiff's dismissal from his position should be calculated on the basis of wages in normal working conditions, which did not consider the above removal from his position, on the ground that the plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal from his office and received an order for dismissal from his Labor Relations Commission on August 1, 1996.

The removal from position is a provisional measure that prevents a worker from performing his duties for the purpose of preventing an anticipated occupational obstacle if the worker is charged with criminal affairs in the future, in case where the worker is dismissed temporarily for the same reason as the reason for the removal from position after the worker was dismissed for a certain reason, the removal from position originally becomes void (see Supreme Court Decisions 77Nu148 delivered on December 26, 1978, 84Nu677 delivered on March 26, 198, and 84Nu677 delivered on March 26, 198), and the decision of the court below to that effect is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relationship between removal from position and dismissal as in the theory of a lawsuit in the judgment of the court below.

In this case, it is clear in the record that the plaintiff asserts the validity of the above removal from position and sought payment of the full amount of wages. Thus, we cannot accept the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure for remedy for unfair dismissal or the scope of the judgment of the court of this case, such as the plaintiff's lawsuit on the determination of the validity of the removal from position. All arguments are

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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)