beta
Text
1. As to KRW 171,176,897 and KRW 166,918,443 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall be from January 15, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant is a company that runs the business of manufacturing automobile parts.
On July 12, 2011, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant and began to serve as a managing director. On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff was promoted to the vice president as the first patrol officer. The Plaintiff’s retirement date is December 31, 2015.
B. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff received “written request for attendance” from the Defendant to hold a disciplinary committee against the Plaintiff on February 9, 2014. The aforementioned “written request for attendance” was written only on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s disciplinary cause, “a person who disturbs the company’s discipline and order,” and “other acts subject to disciplinary action.”
C. On February 13, 2014, the Defendant held a disciplinary committee during the Plaintiff’s attendance, and was punished by a disciplinary dismissal against the Plaintiff as of February 18, 2014, on February 17, 2014.
(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) is subject to “the chief of the disciplinary action” with the content of “the disciplinary action,” and the grounds for disciplinary action stated in the “the chief of the disciplinary action” are as follows.
① The Plaintiff did not report to the Defendant even if he was aware in advance that the employees would have to use the annual period of employment, and assisted and abetted the employees to use the annual period of employment, and, after the occurrence of the annual period of employment, “whether or not he was aware of it” was the Defendant’s representative director, thereby disturbing the company’s regulations by deceiving C, a commercial person, who is the Defendant’s representative director.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff violated Article 14(1)8, Article 22 subparag. 11, and Article 64 subparag. 23 of the Rules of Employment.
(2) The Plaintiff did not report to the Defendant, while having known in advance that the employee would be expected to establish a trade union, and did not report the establishment of a trade union to the Defendant through monetary support.