logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.09.12 2016가합999
회원제명 징계처분 무효
Text

1. On January 28, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff as a member was null and void.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an incorporated association aimed at protecting the rights and interests of domestic writers and improving their status, and the plaintiff is a member of the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff is an extraordinary general meeting at D on September 5, 2015 (hereinafter “instant extraordinary meeting”).

(2) On November 24, 2015, the Defendant’s E/F, a member of the E/F E/F, investigated the facts of suspicion of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, including the act of disturbance at the place of the instant special meeting, and subsequently, issued a report on a disciplinary investigation to recommend the Defendant’s board of directors to propose the expulsion of the Plaintiff.

3) On January 28, 2016, the Defendant held the 8th board of directors in 2015 on the agenda of “case of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff,” and the said board of directors passed a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s member on the grounds that the following misconduct was caused (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

). ▣ 주문 징계규정 제14조 제1항 제4호, 제5호 및 제2항 제10호, 제13호에 의거하여 제명으로 결의 (비위건명: 명예훼손, 무고, 품위손상 외) ▣ 징계사유 2015 임시총회장(D)에서 회의 도중 단상으로 뛰어 올라가 의장에게 욕설을 하고 폭행을 시도함(이하 ‘제1 징계사유’라 한다

2) Assaults a adviser attending an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 2”)

3) The grounds of appeal No. 3 are as follows. The grounds of appeal No. 1 and the grounds of appeal No. 1 and the grounds of appeal No. 1 and the grounds of appeal No. 2 are as follows.

(4) On February 11, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant disciplinary action, and the following day, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on the instant disciplinary action against the Defendant.

However, on February 28, 2016, the defendant decided to review the purport of establishing the original disposition, and notified the plaintiff of the result.

arrow