Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

Cho-hee et al. and one other

Doljin Electronic Corporation

Incheon District Court (87Gahap1919)

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

As of October 1, 1987, the defendant confirmed that dismissal made against the plaintiffs as of October 1, 1987 is null and void.

From October 5, 1987 to the reinstatement of the plaintiffs, the defendant paid to the plaintiff Cho Yong-hee an amount of 175,808 won per month and 170,637 won per month to the plaintiff Kim Sung-ho.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a provisional execution order with respect to the monetary payment.

1. The fact that the defendant company opened a disciplinary committee pursuant to Articles 64-2, 65, and 47 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company and decided to take disciplinary action against the plaintiffs on Sep. 18, 1987 and notified the plaintiffs of this on Oct. 1, 1987 that the plaintiffs dismissed for reasons that the plaintiffs were engaged in illegal assemblies and demonstrations which caused criminal prosecution, and submitted false resumes and a false letter of apologys through disguised academic background.

2. First, the plaintiffs, under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, cannot dismiss workers without any justifiable reason, and the defendant's dismissal against the plaintiffs is invalid since there is no justifiable reason.

Therefore, with respect to the fact that the plaintiffs were engaged in illegal assemblies and demonstrations which were the cause of criminal prosecution, the court below's decision that the plaintiffs' dismissal had no dispute over the establishment of the above Article 9-2, 3, 17 through 24, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (Rules of Employment) which are acknowledged as genuine by the whole purport of pleading and the previous purport of pleading as to the testimony of the witness at the court below's 19th day from August 22, 1987 to September 14:30 of the same year provided that the defendant's act of violation of the Rules of Employment No. 9 was committed for the same reason as the defendant's 6th day before the defendant company's dismissal, and that there was no fear that the defendant's act of violation of the Rules of Employment No. 9 was likely to seriously interfere with the society's discipline, such as the defendant's act of violating the Rules of Employment No. 1 and No. 28th day of the same year.

The following reasons for dismissal of the plaintiffs were that the above plaintiffs were prepared and entered in a false resume and a false letter of employment, Eul evidence Nos. 5 (Employment Rules), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 3-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 4-2, and the whole purport of oral argument is as follows. Article 65 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company provides that if the above reasons for dismissal of the plaintiffs were based on false facts and false facts, the plaintiffs were stated in the above facts that they were not enrolled in the above university and the above fact that they were enrolled in the defendant college No. 5, and the defendant company No. 2 were found to have not entered in the above fact that they were enrolled in the defendant college No. 5, and the defendant company No. 2 was found to have not entered in the above fact that they were enrolled in the defendant college No. 1 and the defendant company No. 5's last interview with the defendant company No. 1, 2086.

3. In addition, in making a disciplinary decision, the defendant company did not notify the plaintiffs of the fact that it did not give an opportunity to defend themselves when the defendant company did not immediately dismiss the worker, and it did not obtain the recognition that there was a reason attributable to the plaintiffs to the Labor Relations Commission within seven days when the dismissal was conducted immediately, and therefore, the above disciplinary dismissal is inappropriate in the procedure. Therefore, if the employer did not have a provision on punishment in the rules of employment, and the employer did not necessarily provide for the opportunity to defend the worker when the dismissal was conducted in the disciplinary procedure, the dismissal shall not be deemed null and void because it did not take such procedure. In addition, according to Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act, if the employer dismisses the worker without the prior notice of the dismissal due to the reason attributable to him, the dismissal cannot be deemed null and void unless there was a reason attributable to it, and even if the employer did not obtain such recognition, even if the employer did not have an opportunity to defend the worker in the rules of employment, it cannot be deemed null and void as it did not obtain the above opportunity to defend the plaintiffs's disciplinary action.

4. Finally, the defendant company's disciplinary dismissal of the instant disciplinary action at issue constitutes unfair labor practices aimed at suppressing the plaintiffs' legitimate trade union activities, and thus, the defendant company's testimony at the court below's witness Kim Young-dae and the trial witness Lee Jong-chul, which are consistent with this, did not believe and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Thus, the above assertion is groundless.

5. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims in this case seeking confirmation on the premise that the dismissal of this case against the plaintiffs is null and void, and are without merit, and they are all dismissed. The original judgment is just in this conclusion and without merit, and the plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who lose their rights. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han-dae (Presiding Judge)