logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.12.20 2019나2034266
해고무효확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an incorporated foundation established pursuant to the C Development Support Act to develop and support programs for E promotion.

On August 14, 2006, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant and served as the chairman of the Defendant’s trade union (G trade union B branch) from February 1, 2015.

B. On September 1, 2017, H, the Plaintiff’s workplace bonus, filed an application for grievance settlement with the Defendant related to the Plaintiff.

From September 18, 2017 to November 13, 2017, a specific audit was conducted against the plaintiff, while a sexual harassment and sexual assault deliberation committee was held on November 10, 2017.

C. On November 17, 2017, the Defendant’s personnel committee resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff. On December 1, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dismissal”) on the ground that the fact constituting the grounds for disciplinary action was “an indecent act against employees and a violation of dignity maintenance, etc.” as “an indecent act against employees.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1, 20, 30, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not clear or not recognized, and even if the grounds of the disciplinary action are recognized, it is null and void by abusing the discretion of disciplinary action.

Seeking confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal of this case and seeking the payment of wages, etc. that were not received due to the dismissal of this case.

3. Determination

A. (1) Whether the grounds for disciplinary action against the dismissal of the instant case ought to be deemed to be “indecent conduct against employees” and “violations such as the maintenance of dignity.” In that sense, the “violations such as the maintenance of dignity, etc.” cannot be deemed as grounds for disciplinary action.

(1) An employer who intends to dismiss workers shall have the effect of written notification of the grounds and time of dismissal.

(Article 27(1) and (2) of the Labor Standards Act (Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act). This means that the employer has prudently dismissed workers through written notification of the grounds for dismissal, and further, disputes surrounding the existence and timing of dismissal and the reasons therefor are appropriate and easy.

arrow