1. We affirm that the Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff on October 18, 2013 is null and void.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. The Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary action on October 15, 2013 on the grounds of “in-house sexual harassment in the workplace” and corporate regulations, on December 14, 1989, against the Defendant Company Ulsan Factory Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “instant dismissal”). However, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary action on October 15, 2013 on the ground that “in-house order was disturbed” due to the Plaintiff’s failure to submit a written resignation. In accordance with Article 16 of the Discipline Regulations, the Plaintiff was subject to the disciplinary action “in-house dismissal” (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

2. 원고의 주장 원고가 B와 오랜 기간 친하게 지내다보니 성적 의도 없이 옆구리를 찌르거나 엉덩이를 툭 친 적이 있고, 이는 옳지 못한 행동이므로 징계사유임을 인정한다.

그러나 원고가 지속적, 반복적으로 성희롱을 한 것도 아니고, 다른 여직원에게는 그런 행동을 한 적이 없으며, 원고의 여자 친구가 B에게 모욕적인 문자메세지를 보내는 사건이 있기 전까지 B와 친밀한 관계를 유지해왔는데, 위 문자메세지 사건으로 B 가족이 피고회사에게 원고를 진정하여 조사하던 중 원고가 B의 옆구리를 찌르고 엉덩이를 툭 친 적이 있다는 사실이 밝혀졌고, 피고회사는 그 즉시 계도나 경고 없이 원고를 해고하였다.

However, in light of the above degree of sexual harassment and the circumstances where the Plaintiff had worked without a disciplinary action for about 25 years, the dismissal in this case is deemed to be null and void since the determination of disciplinary action is excessive.

3. Determination as to whether the dismissal of this case is null and void because of excessive determination of disciplinary action

A. Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, but it is limited to the case where the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, as the exercise of discretion, has considerably lost validity under social norms, and thus has abused the discretion assigned to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure.