The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, dismissal shall be justified in cases where there are grounds for an employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms. Whether the employee’s employment relationship with the employee can not continue by social norms should be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer’s business, the conditions of the workplace, the status and details of the employee’s duty, the motive and background of the act of misconduct, the impact on the company’s business order, such as the risk that the employee’s deceptive order

(2) On July 8, 2009, the court below held that the dismissal of this case constitutes a disciplinary cause under the rules of employment, and it is reasonable to view that the dismissal of this case constitutes an abuse of the right to impose disciplinary discretion on the grounds that, after recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not comply with the Defendant’s order to return to work more than twice after July 9, 2009 and the refusal to provide labor on three occasions and constitutes a serious cause to the extent that it is impossible to continue the employment relationship with the relevant employee, and that the dismissal of this case constitutes an abuse of the right to impose disciplinary discretion on the grounds that it is reasonable to deem that the dismissal of this case was an abuse of the right to impose disciplinary discretion on the grounds that the former president of the Korea Development and Development Headquarters B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant branch”) or the chairperson of another branch did not take any disciplinary measure on the “cooperative activity during the working hours.”

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by dismissal,