logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.05.17 2014다13457
해고무효확인 등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. In a case where the rules of employment, the rules of punishment, or the standing punishment, stipulate the grounds for disciplinary action as a disciplinary action, and the various kinds of disciplinary actions are possible for the same reason, what kind of disciplinary actions among them belongs to the discretion of the disciplinary authority

However, such discretion is not a arbitrary and convenient discretion of the person having authority to take disciplinary action, and it is required that there exists a balance that is deemed reasonable by social norms between the grounds for disciplinary action and the disciplinary action, and thus it is invalid as an abuse of the authority to take disciplinary action.

(1) In light of the social norms, dismissal is justified in cases where there are grounds for an employee to the extent that the employee cannot continue his/her employment relationship, and whether the employee is unable to continue his/her employment relationship under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively examining and determining various circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer’s business, the circumstances of the workplace, the status of the employee and the details of the duties in charge, the motive and background of the act of misconduct, the impact on the company’s business order, such as the risk of disturbing the corporate deceptive order, the past attitude of the employee’s attitude, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du8018 Decided July 8, 2003; 2006Da48069 Decided November 23, 2006, etc.). 2. The court below acknowledged the following facts by taking account of the adopted evidence.

In around 2001, the Defendant entered into a contract with G (hereinafter “G”) to sell and settle the F merchandise coupons issued by G (hereinafter “ merchandise coupons”) as an agent and to keep and manage merchandise coupons.

The defendant is internally entitled to merchandise coupons.

arrow