logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.11 2017나18868
면직처분무효확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "270,00,00 won" in the 7th 3 and 12th 12th e-mail in the first e-mail in the first e-mail in the first e-mail; "it was done by the approved method" in the 11th e-mail in the 10th e-mail; "Z" in the 13th e-mail in the 14th e-mail in the 14th e-mail in the 14th e-mail; "the defendant's above e-mail sending" in the 14th e-mail in the 14th e-mail in the plaintiff's above e-mail transmission"; except for the addition of the following determination to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is newly or repeatedly going in the court, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. 1) Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the grounds for exclusion 1) Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is that “K has received gift certificates from the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties.” Meanwhile, there is inconsistency in the reasoning by stating that “There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff has received gift certificates.” 2) K and J have the grounds for disciplinary action, which is the same as the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, as the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, and there is a ground for exclusion as to the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. 2) As seen earlier, the first instance court received gift certificates from the Plaintiff at the “Tgu branch” where K works, but there is no dispute between the parties, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that K has received gift certificates from the Plaintiff, which is not the head of the branch office at the Daegu branch office, and there is no conflict in the reasoning of the first instance judgment.

② The fourth disciplinary action against the Plaintiff is not a “receiving merchandise coupons” itself, but a merchandise coupon from L.

arrow