Plaintiff (Attorney Kang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kwon Young-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 11, 2019

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant confirmed that his dismissal on May 18, 2018 against the Plaintiff is null and void. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 8,634,708 from May 19, 2018 until the Plaintiff’s reinstatement.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 2004, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant who is engaged in the broadcasting business, etc., and worked as a camera. In December 2012, the Defendant, as a staff member of the news reporting station, established a news gathering center that oversees the departments of the political, economic, social, and two copies, etc. to which the reporters and reporters belong.

B. The Defendant established three trade unions, including the Korea Press Union Culture and Broadcasting Headquarters (hereinafter “Article 1”) and the MBC Trade Union (hereinafter “Article 3 labor union”). On August 8, 2017, the Korea Press Union’s first and the MBC Video Press Association filed a complaint with Nonparty 4, the Director General of the Korea Press Center (the Director General of the Korea Communications Center), who was the author of the above documents, against the prosecution, for the purpose of analyzing and assessing the tendency by dividing the Defendant’s carmers into class 4 according to the company’s loyalty and the degree of participation in labor union, and for the purpose of evaluating and assessing the tendency by dividing them into class 4, according to the company’s loyalty and labor union participation. (The specific content is the same as the attached document; hereinafter “the instant document”).

C. Since January 8, 2018, to March 22, 2018, the Defendant Audit and Inspection Bureau conducted the “Special Audit and Inspection related to MBC Tracck and Unfair Labor Practices” to reveal the suspicion of the execution of the instant documents. The audit and inspection authority determined that the Plaintiff participated in the preparation and execution of the instant documents, and requested the Defendant Personnel Committee to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

D. On May 3, 2018, based on the above audit results, the Defendant Personnel Committee opened a personnel committee for the Plaintiff on May 3, 2018, and heard the Plaintiff’s vindication, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on May 14, 2018. On May 18, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the review results of the following (referring to the instant document) (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”).

본문내 포함된 표 1. 심의대상자 : 원고 ⇒ 결과 : 해고 2. 징계사유 및 근거 ○ 징계사유 : MBC블랙리스트와 임직원들의 부당노동행위 관련 특별감사 결과 조치 - 동료 카메라기자들을 ‘격리대상’, ‘방출대상’, ‘주요관찰대상’, ‘회유가능’의 4등급으로 분류하여 작성하고, 자신이 작성한 ‘블랙리스트’가 반영된 인사안을 소외 1 취재센터장에게 메일로 보고하여 결과적으로 실행되게 하였음. - 객관적 평가자료나 합리적 근거도 없이 특정 대상에 대한 충성도나 노조성향을 자의적인 판단에 따라 임의로 블랙리스트를 작성ㆍ전달함으로써 명예훼손에 해당하는 불법행위를 저지름은 물론, 당사자들에게 인사상 불이익한 처분이 가해지도록 하는 부당노동행위의 원인을 제공하여, 합리적 인사관리를 방해하고 직장질서를 문란케 하는 심대한 해사행위를 함. ○ 근거 : 취업규칙, 감사업무규정 【취업규칙】 제3조 (준수의무) 회사는 이 규칙에 정한 근로조건으로 직원을 근무시키며, 직원은 이 규칙에 정한 사항과 회사의 제 규정을 준수하고 상사의 업무상 지시에 따라 맡은 바 직무를 성실히 수행할 의무를 진다. 제4조 (품위유지) 직원은 회사의 명예와 위신을 손상하는 행위를 하여서는 아니 되며, 방송강령 및 윤리강령을 준수하고 상호인격을 존중하여 직장의 질서를 유지하여야 한다. 제66조 (징계사유) 직원이 다음 각 호의 1에 해당하는 경우에는 인사위원회의 심의를 거쳐 이를 징계할 수 있다. 1. 사규를 위반하였을 때 2. 직무상 의무를 위반하였을 때 【감사업무규정】 제23조(감사결과에 대한 조치) 1. 감사는 감사결과 적출한 위법 또는 부당한 사실에 대하여 다음 각 호의 조치를 취하여야 한다. 다. 관계자에 대한 징계요구

E. On March 14, 2014, the content of the Plaintiff’s personnel proposal prepared by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant personnel period”) as indicated in the foregoing disciplinary cause against the Plaintiff and the content of the personnel management (on March 17, 2014, as indicated in the following table (the date of the issuance) of the Defendant’s Kamermeras as to 12 persons affiliated with the Defendant were included in only “name”, “on-site department”, “revision department”, and “reasons for modification” as indicated in the following table. The sports news coverage department is the department affiliated with the sports headquarters of the news report headquarters, the department affiliated with the sports headquarters, and the department affiliated with the implications production headquarters, and the “classification” is indicated for convenience in accordance with the classification criteria for the instant documents).

The change of name list No. 1 in the main text is the actual personnel of Nonparty 1, 6, 2, and 7, the Ministry of Finance and Economy - Nonparty 1, the Ministry of Finance and Economy 7, and the Ministry of Finance and Economy 7, the Ministry of Finance and Economy - Nonparty 3, the Ministry of Finance and Economy 8, the Ministry of Finance and Economy - the Ministry of Culture and Welfare - the Ministry of Finance and Economy - - the Ministry of Information and Welfare - - the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication - 4-- the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication 10, the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication - the Ministry of Information and Communication 10, the Ministry of Culture and Leisure - the Ministry of Culture and Leisure 2, the Ministry of Information and Leisure 10, the Ministry -2, the Ministry of Social Welfare -17.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 1 through 5, 9, 12, 13, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 8-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether disciplinary proceedings are lawful

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The Defendant, without the court’s search and seizure warrant or the Plaintiff’s prior consent, perused and verified the Plaintiff’s internal net e-mail and its account logs without permission, and issued the instant dismissal order to the Plaintiff as evidence. The above dismissal disposition has significant defects that did not comply with due process by infringing the Plaintiff’s personal rights and privacy during the investigation process.

B) In addition, the dismissal of this case is unlawful as it is based on the result of the activities of the Defendant Normalization Committee without legal basis.

2) Determination as to the assertion

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s audit and inspection authority obtained the Plaintiff’s prior consent in the course of inspecting and verifying the Plaintiff’s intra-company net e-mail and the logs of the account to clarify the suspicion of the execution of the instant documents. However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned investigation method of the Defendant’s above infringement of the Plaintiff’s personal rights or privacy, and thus, cannot be deemed as procedural defect to the extent that the disposition of the instant case becomes null and void. Accordingly, the allegation is without merit.

① On August 8, 2017, through the press conference of Defendant 1’s labor union, etc., the Defendant revealed the existence of the instant documents in terms of analyzing and evaluating the tendency of the members in the Defendant, and raised doubt that there was a disadvantage in personnel affairs with the said documents. Such an act is an act detrimental to corporate order, and is an act detrimental to the fairness and autonomy of a broadcasting company, such as the Defendant, and constitutes an act detrimental to corporate order, and an act detrimental to fairness and autonomy, which is the core value of the broadcasting company, such as the Defendant, and constitutes a serious misconduct that may constitute an offense such as unfair labor practice or obstruction of business. In the event that the said documents are revealed to have been lost, there was a legitimate interest to directly examine the suspicion

② In the company’s e-mail perused by the Defendant during the audit process is transmitted and stored by the electronic computer system installed by the Defendant for the purpose of business, and its use is restricted for business purposes, and in principle, private use is prohibited. As such, the said e-mail and the e-mail and the e-mail are not deemed to have a significant need to be protected as a personal right or privacy secret. Generally, the main reason why strict security on the company’s e-mail and other business information is required is to prevent the company’s internal business information from being leaked to the outside, and to protect the company’s personal right or privacy

(3) The Defendant received from its employees a written oath of information protection including that “where necessary to protect trade secrets, prevent leakage, and respond to security accidents, consent to the inspection, search, and audit of inside-house e-mail, communication network records, etc.” from the company’s employees to the extent necessary to protect the company’s legitimate interests solely on the ground of the possibility of private use that the personal rights or privacy, which were offered for business purposes, would be actively protected. In light of this, it is difficult to see that a reasonable expectation that his/her personal rights or privacy, which were offered for business purposes, would be protected is generally recognized, and its approach should be uniformly restricted to the extent necessary to protect the company’s legitimate interests

④ The purpose of the instant document’s act was the conduct that occurred during the process of performing duties among the employees, and it was highly probable that the intra-company net e-mail was used in the unlawful act. In particular, in order to clarify the suspicion of the execution of the said document, the Plaintiff’s act was essential to read and confirm the Plaintiff’s intra-company net e-mail in order to grasp the delivery route of the document.

⑤ The Defendant’s Audit Board, first of all, concealed executives and employees who are in a position to be involved in the preparation and execution of the instant documents, etc. as the subject of search, and searched the name of the body title and attached files of the e-mail of the subject, including “stitus, list, list, stitus, and cameras.” Furthermore, during the process of searching the searched e-mail, the Defendant’s Audit Board searched the name of the body title and attached files of the subject’s e-mail, including “stitus, list, list, stitus, and cameras.” Furthermore, the Defendant took reasonable measures in advance to ensure that personal rights or privacy is not infringed, regardless of the purpose of search.

6) There is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, did not exclusively participate in the past strike, had unlimited perusal of the e-mail and its log records of the employees who were not at all related to the preparation and execution of the instant documents, on the sole ground that the Defendant was either a member of the 3 labor union or a member of the 3rd labor union, or a member of the past labor strike, as in the instant case of the Plaintiff’s assertion

3) Determination as to the assertion

The instant dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff is not a request for the investigation and disciplinary action of the Defendant Normalization Committee, but a decision was made by the Defendant’s audit and inspection committee on the “MBC Records and Unfair Labor Practices” and the “Special Audit and Inspection Committee” under the Defendant’s request for disciplinary action. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action

1) Specific grounds for disciplinary action

The grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff are as follows: ① (a) the Plaintiff prepared the instant documents and the instant letter of personnel movement reflecting them, and among them, reported the instant letter of personnel movement to Nonparty 1, the personnel management authority, thereby disturbing the order of service; (b) the Plaintiff took part in Nonparty 1’s unfair labor practice by having the personnel management of March 14, 2014 in accordance with the instant letter of personnel movement; and (c) the instant documents containing the contents of defamation or insult against a specific person constituted a tort falling under the crime of defamation or insult by sharing with another person.

2) The plaintiff's assertion

① As to the grounds for disciplinary action, the instant documents were printed out in the computer owned by the Defendant, and the first person to prepare the said files may only satisfy the Plaintiff, but may not be held responsible for the Plaintiff’s preparation of the instant documents.

② With respect to the grounds for disciplinary action, the personnel management of March 14, 2014 was not conducted on the basis of the instant personnel movement.

③ As to the disciplinary cause, the Plaintiff was the first maker of the file files of the instant documents, and did not commit an unlawful act corresponding to defamation or insult, since the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant documents to another person.

3) ① Determination of grounds for disciplinary action

A) The following facts are acknowledged according to the purport of the entry of No. 2 in the evidence and the entire pleadings.

On June 19, 2017, the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the “National Intelligence Service”) created a Committee for the Reform and Development of the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the “National Intelligence Service”) and organized an internal document, etc. under its control, and the “National Intelligence Service” investigated the internal document, etc. contained in the MBC normalization Strategy and Promotion Plan. In the process, the NIS created a document stating “MBC Normalization Promotion Plan” and sent it to the Defendant (former President 18), and most of the above documents were identified in the circumstances in which the implementation of the foregoing documents was carried out, and was indicted as a crime of violation of the NISA. The instant document appears to have been discovered during the investigation and investigation process, and was so known and known through the press conference and the MBC Image Resolution, and thereafter, the auditor commenced the audit and inspection of the Defendant.

B) In light of the foregoing circumstances, the existence of the instant documents is determined to have not been known, except those who were allowed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to access the file of the instant documents, until the existence of the instant documents became known. The reasons are as follows.

- The Plaintiff asserts that the document of this case was prepared for personal service in order to memory the dual acts of the carmers. Even without accepting the Plaintiff’s above assertion, as long as the document of this case is based on the analysis and rating assessment of the tendency toward the carmers, the Plaintiff is bound to have stored and managed the file of this case in the accessible server, not the accessible co-owner. Thus, it is reasonable to view that, if a group had corrected the file of this case on the file of this case, it was done under the Plaintiff’s permission.

- If the document file of this case was modified in a way that the Plaintiff did not know, then the file of this case was stored in a server that can be easily accessible by anyone, including Article 1No. 1, or the group intended to harm the Plaintiff intentionally intrudes on the server managed by the Plaintiff through hacking, etc. If so, it would not be said that the existence of the document of this case was not known for a few years until it was opened through the investigation by the NIS.

- The documents of this case were in the form of a file, not an printed document, and were found by the NIS or investigative agency during the investigation process as seen earlier.

C) On August 8, 2017, the Plaintiff recognized the preparation of the instant documents in the course of the investigation by his/her Facebook, the Personnel Committee established on May 3, 2018, and the investigative agency. However, the Plaintiff asserted the possibility of alteration by denying the preparation of the instant documents without presenting any specific persuasive grounds through the preparatory documents as of April 4, 2018.

D) Accordingly, the Plaintiff is responsible for the entire content of the instant documents, including the modified content, and the Plaintiff further prepared and delivered the instant personnel movement proposal reflecting the instant documents to Nonparty 1. It is recognized that the Plaintiff violated the order of service.

4) ② Judgment on grounds of disciplinary action

A) The following facts are acknowledged in light of the above evidence and Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 8-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 15, 16 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

- On May 24, 2013, immediately after Nonparty 1 was appointed as the news gathering center head of the news reporting station, Nonparty 4, who was the director of the news reporting station at the time, was frequently engaged in the news reporting station personnel affairs, and Nonparty 1 decided on the personnel affairs of carmers with the head of the department to which Nonparty 1 belongs. Accordingly, Nonparty 1, as the head of the news gathering center, had the authority to first determine the personnel affairs of carmers belonging to the news reporting station.

- On June 1, 2013, after Nonparty 1 was appointed as the news gathering center, the Plaintiff, a carmer belonging to the political department of the news reporting bureau, prepared a document of “measures to improve the management of news videos” with the content that “in order to resolve the situation in which the organization and people under the influence of labor union due to the absence of the manager of the news media sector are in charge of the news media sector, it is proposed to have a position to manage video personnel and equipment” and attached to the document, the portion of employees who were not admitted to Article 3 is treated as sound. Nonparty 3, a carmer belonging to the department of the news reporting bureau, delivered the above document to Nonparty 1 via internal carnet mail on June 3, 2013.

- The Plaintiff first drawn up the instant documents on July 6, 2013, where one month was past, and the degree of one month thereafter. As shown in the attached Form, the said documents include the following: (a) the 65 Kamerasians affiliated with Defendant were classified as class 4 depending on the degree of loyalty and the degree of participation in labor union formation; and (b) whether the work of the main department of the news reporting station for the subject matter for each grade is appropriate (which is subject to observation, need to be released, can be returned, need to be isolated, and impact on the organization

- On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff sent the e-mail of Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1, “the status of personnel movement,” and attached the instant personnel movement proposal. Nonparty 1 perused this day on the same day, and Nonparty 1 stated “the grounds for change” in the said personnel movement, “non-party 1 did not have any problem.” On the following day, Nonparty 1 did not have any problem. At the regular personnel of the news report station, the personnel of 12 persons on the said personnel movement was actually conducted, and the personnel of 9 of them are consistent with the contents of the said personnel movement (order Department).

- On August 10, 2017, the following day after the existence of the document of this case was revealed through the press conference of the first labor union, etc. and the prosecution complaint was filed against the plaintiff and non-party 1, etc. accordingly, the non-party 1 visited the intra-company net (which was before the introduction of a new setnet system called "M portal" in December 2016) and confirmed the "measures to improve the management of news images" and the e-mail attached to the personnel of this case, deleted it and deleted the remaining e-mail en bloc. On the same day, the plaintiff also accessed the said setnet and deleted the e-mail en bloc.

B) However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned evidence, evidence Nos. 9, and evidence Nos. 7-3, which can be comprehensively seen in light of the overall purport of the pleadings, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone, is insufficient to readily conclude that Nonparty 1 conspired with the Plaintiff to prepare the instant documents and the instant personnel movement proposal reflecting such documents, and accordingly, he/she conducted personnel affairs on March 14, 2014, and there is no other evidence, and thus, it is not recognized as grounds for disciplinary action.

- The instant documents were amended six times for about eight months in February 2014, but did not verify the fact that the said documents were delivered to Nonparty 1 via the intra-company net e-mail, and there was no evidence to prove the fact that Nonparty 1 ordered the Plaintiff to prepare the said documents. In the 1st century, the Plaintiff’s writing written in the 1st century, immediately after the instant documents were cut off, merely stated that “The said documents were made by the members of the 1st century, who were in the middle of the 1st century, and the two-friendly Kamerman (referring to Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, according to the Defendant’s assertion) who participated in Article 30, the said documents were sent to Nonparty 1.”

- The “measures to improve the management of news reports” that was delivered by Nonparty 1 to the news gathering center immediately after Nonparty 1 was appointed as the head of the news gathering center refers to the “improvement of the efficiency and efficiency in the operation of human resources and equipment and equipment distributed to many departments” for the main reason that the establishment of a video management position is required. The above documents are difficult to be considered as documents prepared by Nonparty 1’s instructions and do not have actual implementation of the above measures. The Plaintiff sent documents to Nonparty 2 (the best Kamerra among the class class of the instant documents in the Seoul Special Self-Governing City/Do) in March 2014 and Nonparty 2 were not transferred to Nonparty 1 (No. 8-2). In view of this, the documents containing the scenarios in the case where Nonparty 1 was sent to Nonparty 1, the mere fact that Nonparty 1 received the “measures to improve the management of news reports immediately after Nonparty 1 was assigned to Nonparty 1’s senior official.” The mere fact that Nonparty 1 received the “measures to improve the management of news reports.”

- Ten persons, excluding No. 3 and No. 6 (Non-Party 8, Non-Party 11) among the 12 carmers included in the instant personnel movement, sent by the Plaintiff to Non-Party 1, include a distance from the personnel according to the company’s loyalty or labor union participation degree (in the case of Non-Party 15, it is evident that the reason for his personnel movement is for other employees’ leave of absence), but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that Non-Party 1 engaged in the above 10 persons based on the content of the instant documents, namely, the degree of participation in labor union, etc.

- 이 사건 인사이동안 중 순번 3, 6(소외 8, 소외 11)에 관한 ‘변경사유’는 이 사건 문건의 내용과 일치한다. 그러나 ㉠ 그 이동안의 내용과 실제 발령부서가 다른 점, ㉡ 보도국과 스포츠국의 인사교류는 스포츠취재부장의 요청에 따라 시작된 점, ㉢ 소외 8은 2013년 6월 이후로 경제부 데스크 직을 수행하고 있지도 않았던 점, ㉣ 당시 경제부장 소외 20은 소외 8, 소외 6의 인사와 관련해 사전에 소외 1과 의견을 주고받았다고 진술하고 정보과학부장 소외 21도 소외 8이 순환배치에 따라 정보과학부로 인사가 날 것임을 사전에 알고 있었던 점, ㉤ 소외 8, 소외 11은 모두 기존 부서에서 1년 이상 근무하고 있었던 점을 감안할 때, 소외 1이 원고와의 사전협의나 위 인사이동안에 근거하여 위 2명에 대한 인사를 시행했다고 단정하기 어렵다.

- After Nonparty 1 was appointed as the head of the news gathering center, Nonparty 1 had been on six occasions from March 14, 2014 to the time of regular personnel management. During that process, there was no obvious circumstance to deem that Nonparty 1 gave any disadvantage or preference in personnel affairs contrary to the personnel principles, and there was no fact between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1.

- The time when the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 comprehensively deleted the intra-company e-mail was immediately immediately after the reporter’s check and prosecution’s complaint, such as Article 10, etc., and as seen earlier, the “measures to improve the management of news images” and the content of negative assessment of Article 10 during the personnel period of this case. Even if the Plaintiff did not participate in the preparation and execution of the instant document, the fact that the e-mail accompanied by such file was delivered may be doubtful that he was involved in the preparation and execution of the said document, and that Nonparty 1 did not reprimand at the time may constitute an inappropriate job. Accordingly, it is insufficient to take advantage of the core circumstances to deem that Nonparty 1 was involved in the preparation and execution of the said document.

(3) Judgment on the grounds for disciplinary action

The Plaintiff’s assessment of the material of the instant document constitutes defamation by infringing on the socially objective assessment of human character values, such as character, morality, reputation, and credit, or by infringing on a person’s personality value, such as “the number of people to change an opportunity due to lack of business ability and high level of personal desire,” “an extremely personal character,” “a fluent and sincere screening,” “consent and sincere screening,” “conscepters of a well-constinence that meet the doctrine,” “a lack of serious business ability,” and “human beings who do not have a sense of existence due to negligence” as included in the document of this case. The Plaintiff’s assessment of material of the material of the instant case constitutes defamation by infringing on the social objective assessment of human character values, such as character, character, morals, reputation, and reputation. or the form and content of an expressive act constitutes

In addition, according to the statement No. 7-3 of the evidence No. 7-2, the Plaintiff, on August 8, 2017, on the day the document of this case was wideed, sent to Nonparty 1 the letter that “the Plaintiff created the document of this case to two Kamerasians. The Plaintiff was too friendly and well-known, and the Plaintiff’s initial statement made by the Plaintiff was considered to have high credibility.” As such, the first statement made by the Plaintiff was deemed to have satisfied the elements of criminal defamation, insult, or civil tort. Moreover, the Plaintiff delivered the personnel movement report of this case reflecting the document of this case to Nonparty 1, including defamation or insulting expressions, such as “the issue of defective attitude and loyalty in performing his duties,” and it is recognized that there was disciplinary cause.

C. Whether the disciplinary discretion has been exceeded or abused

1) When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action, the person subject to disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person subject to disciplinary action. However, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when it is deemed that the person subject to disciplinary action has abused the discretionary power vested in the person subject to disciplinary action because the person subject to disciplinary action has substantially lost validity under the social norms. If the disciplinary measure is deemed to be an illegal measure beyond the scope of discretionary power because it has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the contents and nature of the offense, which is the cause of the disciplinary measure, and the purpose of the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the disciplinary measure, etc., shall be considered to be clearly and objectively unfair in determining the contents of the disciplinary measure, depending on the specific cases (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Da60890, 60906, Aug. 23, 2002; 2004Du10852, Apr. 29, 2005).

On the other hand, dismissal disposition is justified in cases where there are grounds for an employee's responsibility to the extent that the employee cannot continue the employee's employment relationship under the social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employee's employment relationship with the employee under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer's business, conditions of the workplace, status of the employee and the job in charge, motive and circumstance of the act of misconduct, influence on the company's order, such as the risk of disturbing the company's deceptive order by the act of the employee, and previous attitude of work (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1045

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the health class, the facts as seen earlier, and the purport of the entire pleadings, ② the others except for the grounds for the disciplinary action, ③ the grounds for the disciplinary action alone are acknowledged to have the grounds attributable to the Plaintiff to the extent that the pertinent dismissal disposition is not capable of continuing the employment relationship under the social norms, and the dismissal disposition of the instant case does not

- The media is a pillar that supports democracy. The democracy can not exist unless free expression of opinion and active debate are guaranteed. Accordingly, the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by Article 21(1) of the Constitution is one of the essential conditions for realizing the declaration under Article 1(1) of the Constitution, “the Republic of Korea is a democratic republic.”

As a result, the independence of journalists is of an important value. An opinion on the system, even though it is not a decision-making authority, must be free from any member, and any disadvantage should not be placed in the proposal for the development of the company. Although political activities are prohibited (Article 6-1 of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant), the freedom of political inclinations is guaranteed, and discrimination should not be received on this ground. Since all workers' interests cannot be identical, multiple labor union systems introduced to substantially guarantee the individual rights and interests of workers are abused as the tool for the division of workers at all times.

- The Plaintiff did not prepare for the purpose of personal custody of the instant documents, but intended to deliver the content of the instant documents to the personnel management authority, thereby affecting personnel affairs. In fact, the Plaintiff prepared and sent the instant letter of personnel movement reflecting the content of the instant documents to Nonparty 1, the personnel management authority, and accordingly, did not seem to have been actually engaged in personnel affairs. However, the Plaintiff’s attempt to influence personnel affairs should be assessed to the degree of the misconduct, solely on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff attempted to influence personnel affairs.

- Of the documents of this case, the documents of this case, “Cmerra's tendency analysis table” were divided into Grade 4 solely based on loyalty to the company, the current position to stay, and the type of labor union. The documents of the title “Samer's tendency”, excluding Grade 1, are analyzed in detail in accordance with the above criteria. The documents of this case, excluding class 1, are presented to determine whether the work of the main department of the news reporting state for each class is appropriate (subject to observation, meeting, isolation, and release). During the personnel period reflecting the contents of this case, the reasons for the division against Nonparty 8 and Nonparty 11 of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, who belongs to the Ministry of Finance and Economy, are “non-party 8 and the Ministry of Labor cooperates with the company policy as a force of the press union, and thus, the Plaintiff’s action is not free opinion on the system of personnel affairs, not an internal accusation against employees, but is at any disadvantage to make himself/herself a political action. It is not a matter of self-conven with its own policy.

- The so-called black list, such as the instant documents, opened a possibility of disadvantage to the persons subject to the list, thereby gaining fear that they would be disadvantaged when forming ideas or conscience that do not fit the specific political interests of the side with power at the time, and rather infringing on the essential area of the freedom of speech by making a question about whether they should form ideas or conscience that are consistent with power, rather than having to form a thought or conscience that is consistent with the power.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant dismissal disposition is lawful. As such, a claim for wages calculated by the rate of KRW 8,634,708 (the average amount of wages, bonuses, and overtime allowances received in 2015) from May 19, 2018 to the Plaintiff’s reinstatement from May 19, 2018, which is the following day of the date of the Plaintiff’s request for confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal disposition of this case against the Defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge)