204Du10401 Revocation of the Request for Remedy against Unfair Dismissal

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Attorney Lee Im-soo, Han-soo, Kacheon-il, Korea;

Kim Jin, Park Young-hun

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2003 - 12778 Decided August 20, 2004

May 26, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A disposition of dismissal is justified when there are reasons for the employer to the extent that the employer cannot continue the employment relationship. Whether it is impossible for the employer to continue the employment relationship with the worker concerned under social norms should be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances such as the purpose and nature of the business, the circumstances of the workplace, the status of the worker concerned and the contents of the duties in charge, the motive and circumstances of the act of misconduct, the influence of the act of misconduct on the company's business order such as the risk of disturbing the company's deceptive order, the previous attitude of work, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 202Da

28. See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10455 Decided 28.

Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) 1982.

6.1. The intervenor was appointed as the head of the Incheon Compensation Center to the position of director on April 1, 1996, and was transferred to the head of the Cheongju Compensation Center on August 1, 1998. On December 24, 1998, the intervenor was issued as the head of the Cheongju Compensation Center on July 1, 200, and was transferred to the head of the Cheongnam Compensation Center on July 1, 200, to the Cheongnam Compensation Center as the team leader. On December 1, 2001, the intervenor was transferred to the Cheongnam Compensation Center as the team leader of the Danam Compensation Center on December 1, 200. The plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the intervenor did not comply with the instructions of the head of the NA and the team leader on his behalf after the issuance of the team leader, and that the intervenor was dismissed on the ground that the intervenor was dismissed on the ground that the intervenor was dismissed on the ground that he was dismissed on the part of the Seoul Labor Relations Commission.

In addition, the court below affirmed the judgment below that the intervenor's refusal to perform his duties is against the possibility of criticism in light of the following: (a) the team leader of the Central Compensation 1 Team assigned by the intervenor as a team member was a part of the intervenor's membership; (b) the participant was a seat arrangement; and (c) the participant was unable to properly treat the participant as a team member by providing only 10% of the amount of work usually distributed to the participant; and (d) it appears that the participant lost his will to work as an unnecessary person; and (e) the participant's legitimate claim was not used for any other purpose at considerable time; and (e) the intervenor was subject to disciplinary action again for the same reason during the disciplinary period; and (e) the intervenor's refusal to perform his duties is against the situation of violation of an ordinary order in the course of his duties; and therefore, (e) it is considerably unreasonable to deem that the labor contract relation between the plaintiff and the participant continues to exist; and (e) the plaintiff's refusal to perform his duties is an abuse of discretionary authority; and (e) the plaintiff's decision of this case.

Examining the facts acknowledged by the record in light of the above legal principles, although the intervenor cannot be deemed to be justified in failing to perform the assigned duties after the issuance of a team member, the refusal to perform such duties can be deemed to have reached the intervenor's responsibility to the extent that the intervenor could not continue the employment relationship by social norms. However, even if the plaintiff implemented personnel policy separating the position and position from the personnel policy in accordance with the public order and good order, there was no example to transfer the employee who was the head of the center to the team member. Thus, the participant appears to have not been able to considerably drop his desire to work due to the above personnel announcement. In such a situation, the plaintiff did not take all measures to attract the intervenor's mind, and rather did not take measures to attract the intervenor's desire to work, such as continuous resignation or existing practices, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to take account of the circumstances leading up to the refusal to perform such duties, which led to abuse of the intervenor's discretionary power within the scope of abuse of the intervenor's employment relationship.

Therefore, although the above determination by the court below is somewhat insufficient as to the legitimacy of the issuance of personnel order, it is justified in the conclusion that the reexamination decision by this case is justifiable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, lack of reasons, and misapprehension of the legal principles as to abuse of discretionary power.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul

Justices 6.0.00.00.00.

Justices Park Jae-young

Justices Cho Jae-tae, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Kim Young-ran

The presiding judge