beta
Text
1. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff is confirmed to be null and void.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a special corporation established pursuant to the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act, and the Plaintiff is a person who served as B from September 1, 201, as the Defendant.
B. Around March 2014, the Plaintiff received the Defendant’s request from the Defendant’s C and D to force force the Defendant’s employees E, who were in need of the inorganic contract transition, and around that time, sent a call to E to encourage E by posting one call. (2) The Defendant’s personnel committee rejected the Defendant’s motion to change a inorganic contract position of E on August 25, 2014, and E retired from the Defendant on the 29th day of the same month.
9. 26. Suicide
(3) On October 2014, the Defendant conducted an audit of the instant accident on or around October 5, 2014, and convened a personnel committee to deliberate on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, C, and D, who is an accident. The personnel committee decided that disciplinary action against B is unlawful, and recommended that the Plaintiff be excluded from the subject of disciplinary action. (4) On November 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that, upon the recommendation of the personnel committee’s personnel measures, the Defendant neglected its duty of care as a good manager, such as neglecting its duty of care, and thereby impairing the Defendant’s reputation.
(5) The Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for a provisional disposition seeking the suspension of validity of the instant dismissal disposition against the Defendant, and this Court, on February 3, 2015, accepted the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “the instant dismissal disposition was made without a resolution of the general meeting, and is deemed to have a serious procedural defect” (Seoul Southern District Court 2014Kahap20301). C. The same is as indicated in the relevant provision in the separate sheet. [Attachment 5]