beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,542,349.
2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant B association as a party (hereinafter "the defendant association") is a corporation established on December 23, 1991 for the purpose of contributing to the sound development of the C business in Busan area and the promotion of common interests, and the plaintiff was employed by the chief of the general affairs division in the defendant association without fixing the period on March 21, 2005.
B. 1) On January 16, 2013, at the election of the president of the Defendant Cooperative, which was held on January 16, 2013, Nonparty D, the former president, took advantage of the difference in Nonparty E, the former president, and some of the members of the Defendant Cooperative, upon receipt of an application for a preliminary injunction (2013Kahap223) against the Defendant Cooperative and D, such as filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation of the election president and suspension of the president’s duties, with the Busan District Court, and suspending the duties of D’s president until the judgment on the merits became final and conclusive on April 26, 2013, upon receiving a decision to appoint an attorney-at-law as its acting president. 2) On February 7, 2013, the above D was ordered to make an oral paid leave as of February 8, 2013, to the Plaintiff on February 25, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff would have been subject to voluntary decision to operate the partnership’s funds, notice of dismissal funds in the Plaintiff’s name.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Gap evidence 2, testimony of witness E, purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. As to the procedural legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 dismissal, the Defendant Union is “a business or workplace which ordinarily employs not less than five workers” under Article 11(1) of the Labor Standards Act, so the disciplinary procedure against the Plaintiff shall have complied with Articles 23 and 26 of the Labor Standards Act, notwithstanding the fact that it should have complied with such procedures.