logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2012.11.21 2012가합3194
해고무효확인 등
Text

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

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 1982, the Plaintiff became a member of C Co., Ltd. and worked as the employee of the Defendant since the merger with the Defendant on March 31, 199. From January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was under disciplinary action on July 15, 201 on the ground of the violation of the prohibition of concurrent offices and the failure to perform duties, etc., upon the decision of the Defendant Disciplinary Committee opened on July 11, 201 (hereinafter the dismissal of this case).

B. On August 10, 201, the Defendant Review and Disciplinary Committee rendered a decision to maintain the instant dismissal on the grounds of violating the Plaintiff’s prohibition of concurrent office and breach of work attitude, etc., and notified the Plaintiff of the result on the 12th of the same month.

2. Grounds for disciplinary action;

A. Although the Plaintiff is an employee working for the head of a branch office in compliance with his/her responsibility and principal portion of duties as a manager, the Plaintiff neglected his/her duties during working hours and continues his/her private profit-making activities by taking part in the multi-stage sales activities of F and Beauty Products Sales Business Group G, which are Co., Ltd. (F and Beauty Products Sales Business Co., Ltd.). (B) The Plaintiff neglected his/her duties due to private profit-making activities during working hours and continued his/her multi-stage sales business, and continued his/her multi-stage sales business. (3) The Plaintiff neglected his/her duties due to his/her own profit-making activities during his/her working hours, and continued his/her multi-stage sales business activities. (4) The Plaintiff’s work attitude is very poor, such as neglecting his/her duties as a branch manager, leading to the management of the branch office and continuing his/her personal affairs. (2) The Plaintiff, as the highest manager of the branch office, shall be held responsible as a manager,

3. Articles 5, 6, 31-4, and 41-14 of the Rules of Employment for Executive Members and Members who are the basis of the disciplinary action.

arrow