beta
Text
1. On December 16, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.
Reasons
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 61,00 full-time workers and engages in automobile manufacture and sales business. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered on October 24, 1985 and served as B’s technical appointment and technical appointment at the former factory located in the Plaintiff’s workplace.
The Intervenor, C, D, and Victims E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are workplace clubs that are going to the Jeonju Factory that is the Plaintiff’s workplace, and the victim L is the latter part of the victim E.
Since March 2014, the Intervenor, C, D, and the victims have been punished for gambling in several times at the company’s neighborhood, and C, and C, and D, when they lose money from the said gambling, they decided to engage in gambling by identifying the other party’s satisfing satfic by using the display strawing satfic number on the back side, and if the Intervenor provided the display satfics, C, a special production satfics, satfics, and distributed money to the victims and the victims, and then distributed the profits.
C and D, around April 5, 2014, at the NMoel located in the NMoel located in the Jeonju-gun M of the former North Korea, obtained a total of 15,754,00 won (C total of 10,4340,000 won) from eight victims, including a remote period of 3.3 million won from the victim F to June 27, 2014, as the Intervenor had engaged in normal gambling while gambling with the victim E, F, and L using marks with high-pollution marks.
Accordingly, the Intervenor, C, and D were provided property by deceiving others in sequence.
B. On February 10, 2015, the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment of conviction of a fine of KRW 15 million to an intervenor on the grounds of the following criminal facts (2014Kadan2156), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
C. The Plaintiff’s crime of the above criminal judgment shall be the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”). The grounds for disciplinary action of this case shall be determined by the resolution of the disciplinary committee.