The case holding that the filing of a lawsuit disputing the validity of dismissal cannot be deemed to violate the good faith principle on the sole basis of the fact that the employee who was subject to disciplinary dismissal clearly expressed his/her intention to appeal, received part of the retirement allowance and received relief order, and received the remaining retirement allowance

The case holding that the filing of a lawsuit disputing the validity of dismissal cannot be deemed to violate the good faith principle on the sole basis of the fact that an employee who is subject to disciplinary dismissal clearly expresses his/her intention to appeal, received part of a retirement allowance and received a relief order, and received the remaining retirement allowance

Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da8763 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1395 delivered on April 14, 1992) 92Da1728 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1596)

Plaintiff

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Coal Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu9888 delivered on May 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal by the Intervenor joining the Defendant

Upon review of the records, while the plaintiff applied for review of disciplinary action on October 12, 1990 when disciplinary action was dismissed by the intervenor on September 29, 190, and applied for review of disciplinary action on October 24, 1990 when the application was rejected, the plaintiff would request the head of the above mining management division to pay part of the retirement allowance to the head of the above mining management division of December 4, 1990 while he clearly stated his intention to object to disciplinary action such as being issued with a certificate of career (Evidence A) on October 24, 1990, the plaintiff received the retirement allowance from the head of the above mining management division of the above mining management division of December 4, 199, and received it on the 10th of the same month after receiving the order of relief from the above local Labor Relations Commission on October 28, 191. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as being in violation of the principle of good faith.

The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the nature of the claim for retirement allowance or the good faith principle as asserted by the lawsuit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided that the plaintiff's non-party 1's distribution of printed matter before receiving a request for cooperation from the non-party 1, who is a worker dismissed, should not be a problem for delivery, and that the plaintiff's use of printed matter should not be a problem for delivery, and that the plaintiff's appearance should be transferred to the plaintiff, as stated in the court below's reasoning that the plaintiff's use of printed matter was not a legitimate tool for delivery of 7 kilometers away from the dong pit to which the plaintiff belongs, and that the plaintiff's appearance and appearance was not a legitimate tool for delivery of the non-party 1, who is a security guard, but failed to put it into the defendant's face after receiving a contact with the above sexual intercourse, and that the plaintiff's appearance and appearance were not an unlawful tool for delivery of the plaintiff's appearance and appearance, as stated in the court below's reasoning, but it did not have any other reasons for the plaintiff's refusal to deliver it to the plaintiff.

3. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 3 and the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The court below held that the plaintiff's act of distributing printed materials constitutes "when there is an act of violating the right to manage the intervenor's facilities" under Article 14 subparagraph 1 of the Commercial Code, and the plaintiff's act of punishing the police assigned for special guard and the trial expenses constitutes "when it interferes with duties or disturbs workplace order" under Article 14 subparagraph 8 of the Commercial Code, but there is a reason to be responsible for an employee to the extent that it is impossible to continue his/her labor contract under social norms to recognize the legitimate grounds under Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act which limits the right to dismiss the employer. In light of the situation where the plaintiff attempted to distribute printed materials and the details of the printed materials, and the fact that the plaintiff did not distribute printed materials to the designated police assigned for special guard, the plaintiff's act of misconduct does not seem to reach the extent that it can no longer maintain the labor contract relations under social norms. Thus, the court below held that the plaintiff's act of dismissal among the disciplinary action prescribed in the Commercial Code is unfair for the reason that the most serious dismissal is not justified.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the intervenor's dismissal disposition of this case constitutes dismissal which deviates from the scope of disciplinary authority due to lack of balanced existence as deemed reasonable by social norms between the grounds for disciplinary action and the disciplinary action, and therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. All arguments are without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.