(영문) 부산고등법원 2014.2.11.선고 2013나2146 판결

1. On September 25, 2013, upon a claim for a change in exchange at the trial, the Defendant confirms that a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on September 25, 2013 is null and void.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by each person.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant confirmed that the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on June 17, 201 and the disciplinary action on September 25, 2013, which was taken by the Defendant on September 201, against the Plaintiff, are null and void (the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the disciplinary action on June 17, 201, which was taken on June 17, 201, was null and void, and the disciplinary action on July 9, 2012, which was taken on January 9, 2012, was changed to the disciplinary action on September 25, 2013, and that part of the claim was changed to that on September 25, 2013).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant confirms that the disciplinary action against the plaintiff on June 17, 201 against the plaintiff is null and void.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling for this case are as follows: (a) between 3, 9 and 10 of the "1. Basic Facts" of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) between 3, 4 and 10 of the following 2, and 3, 40 to 46 of the evidence 37; and (c) 3, 40 to 10 of the 3, 10; (f) 8, 6 to 11 of the 11; and (f) 3, 8, 6 to 13 of the 11.

2. The addition;

“F. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on June 17, 201 with respect to the instant disciplinary action against the Defendant during the said three-month period, and each claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disciplinary action against the said seven-day period of work suspension as of January 9, 2012, and the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on February 7, 2013 that the disciplinary action against the said seven-day period of work suspension as of January 9, 2012 is invalid.

G. On September 25, 2013, the Defendant changed a disciplinary measure taken on September 25, 2013, which was pending in the trial proceeding, for seven days of the suspension of attendance at the court on January 9, 2012, to a disciplinary measure of reprimand, and notified the Plaintiff thereof around that time.

3. Parts to be dried;

Judgment on disciplinary action against the official reprimand on September 25, 2013

(1) Even if the distribution of printed materials is adopted, it cannot be prohibited from carrying out the lawful business activities of a trade union. Thus, whether the distribution of printed materials is not justifiable or not, and in order to determine the legitimacy of that act, it shall be based on the contents of the printed materials, the purchase and distribution period, the object and method of distribution, the impact on the company or business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da11504, Sept. 24, 1996). The contents of the printed materials distributed in the printed materials may be damaged or lost by the text written in the printed materials, and even if some of the factual facts recorded in the printed materials are distorted or distorted, the purpose of distribution of the documents is not to infringe on the rights or interests of others, but to promote the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, the promotion of workers' welfare, and other economic and social status, and if the contents of the documents are true, it shall be deemed that they belong to the scope of activities of workers under 197Mo1397, Apr. 197, 1997.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of each description or image of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 7 and Eul Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 31 (including each number), the plaintiff, separate from the existing labor union of the defendant company, was dismissed from the defendant company by the defendant company without obtaining permission or giving prior notice from the defendant company, and the defendant's 20th anniversary of 0th 7th 20th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 200 7th 7th 7th 7th 200 7th 10th 200 7th 10th 200 7th 7th 200 7th 20 7th 20th 20 7th 20th 20 7th 20th 7th 20 7th 20 7th 20 7th 20 2th 20th 20 7th 20.

The following facts revealed in the above facts. ① After indicating the wages and employment conditions of the employees of the Defendant Company and the pressure against the Plaintiff of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff distributed printed materials to the effect that the reason was due to the previous trade union’s learning as the intent of the Defendant Company. In light of the payment status of the Defendant Company’s wages, etc., it stated that it was not confirmed that there was an exaggeration or that the entire Defendant Company’s speech plant may be removed from the Defendant Company’s company, and that there was a possibility of a marbling more than the need with the Defendant Company and the existing trade union. ② The time when the Plaintiff distributed printed materials is not the day when the Plaintiff works, but the Plaintiff distributed printed materials in violation of Article 24 of the Rules of Employment; ③ the method of distributing printed materials was not permitted by the Defendant Company or not notified in advance, and the Plaintiff’s act of distributing printed materials was irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s labor union’s recommendation. In light of the Plaintiff’s grounds for the disciplinary action prescribed in the Rules of Employment.

However, considering the following facts, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s act of distributing printed materials under the name of the Defendant Company for the purpose of the overall pleading, i.e., distribution of printed materials to the Defendant Company for the reason that it would be difficult to expect the company to reach a prior consultation with the company regarding its specific method, time, place, etc. ② The Plaintiff’s act of distributing printed materials for three times does not seem to have caused particular inconvenience to the Defendant Company’s ordinary business and commuting activities, and the distribution of printed materials to the extent that it would damage other people’s reputation. ③ The distribution of printed materials in the labor union is a matter of independent determination by the relevant labor union, and it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s act of distributing printed materials to the Defendant Company for 10 months, and that it would be difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s act of distributing printed materials to the Defendant Company for 10 years after the removal of printed materials from the Defendant Company for 201.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff on September 25, 2013 shall be deemed to be null and void, and as long as the defendant is dissatisfied with it, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the claim for confirmation of validity with respect to disciplinary action for the period of 3 months of reduction of salary of June 17, 201 among the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the court of first instance shall accept the request for confirmation of invalidity with respect to disciplinary action on September 25, 2013, which was changed in exchange at the trial (the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disciplinary action on September 25, 2013, which was withdrawn from the exchange of the claim at the court of first instance as of January 9, 2012).