2013 Du2499 Nullification of a disposition of suspension from office

1. Kim○-○

Seoul Songpa-gu Gaak-dong 0

2. Kim○-○

Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 ○ ○

3. Domination.

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Yeongdeungpo-dong 6 0 ○

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant]

○○ Broadcasting Corporation

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sodo-dong 0

Representative Director ○ Kim

Law Firm LLC, Attorney Park Jae-soo

Attorney Kim Yong-mun

April 25, 2014

May 9, 2014

1. On December 7, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that a three-month disciplinary measure of suspension against Plaintiff Kim○, and Kim○○ on December 7, 2012, and a two-month disciplinary measure of suspension against Plaintiff Kang○, which was taken against Plaintiff Kang○, is each invalid.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation that carries out broadcasting business and cultural services. The Plaintiff Kim○-○, and Kim○-○, as a reporter belonging to the Defendant’s current events production station, have been in charge of the production of a referring to the current newsO, which is a current news reporting program. The Plaintiff Gangnam-○ worked as the reporter belonging to the Defendant’s news reporting program.

B. On December 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a three-month disciplinary measure of suspension from office (hereinafter “disposition of suspension from office against Plaintiff Kim○-○ and Kim○-○”) on the ground that “The Defendant had an interview with Plaintiff Kim○-○ and Kim○-○ without reporting it to the company, thereby newsing the contents of criticism and defamation that include expressions that read the personality of the management and the head of the department to which he belongs, thereby infringing Article 3, 4, Article 9 subparag. 3, Article 66 subparag. 1, and Article 6 subparag. 6 of the Rules of Employment.”

C. On December 7, 2012, the Defendant took a two-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff Gangnam ○○ on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the direction of the OO’s production, a superior, and violated the rules of employment, Articles 3, 4, and 66 of the Rules, and the Defendant’s guidelines for broadcast production. (hereinafter “the suspension disposition against the Plaintiff Gangwon ○”).

D. The Plaintiffs filed an application for reexamination, but the Review Personnel Committee decided to maintain the aforementioned suspension disposition on December 21, 2012.

E. The defendant's rules of employment and guidelines for broadcast production relating to this case are as follows. The company shall work in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment set forth in these Rules and its employees shall be obliged to observe the matters set forth in these Rules and the company's rules and to faithfully perform their duties in accordance with the commercial instruction. The employee under Article 4 (Maintenance of Dignity) shall not commit any act detrimental to the company's honor and dignity, and shall maintain the order of work by complying with the principles of broadcast principles and the code of ethics and respecting mutual personality. The employee under Article 9 (Matters to be Reported) shall report to the head of the relevant department and the Director-General in charge of personnel affairs without delay in any of the following cases.

2. Whether the suspension disposition against the plaintiff Kim 00 and Kim 00 is legitimate

A. The public interest intent of the Defendant’s normal operation of the Plaintiff KimO and Kim ○○, interviewed with an external press media, and this cannot be a ground for the disciplinary action.

2) Even if the grounds for the disciplinary action are recognized, the above suspension disposition was exceeded and abused by the Defendant’s disciplinary discretion.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff ○○○○ and ○○○○○ ○○○○ ○○○○ ○○○○○○ ○○○○○ ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, testimony of witness Kim ○○ and purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) In violation of Article 9 subparag. 3 of the Rules of Employment, the Plaintiff Kim○, and Kim○○, without reporting to the head of the relevant department and the director-general in charge of personnel affairs, interviewed the instant external press media and the Defendant’s duties or duties related thereto. Therefore, the act of the Plaintiff Kim○ and Kim○○ constitutes grounds for disciplinary action as stipulated in Article 66 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment.

B) The Plaintiff Kim○-○ and Kim○-○ asserted that the instant interview does not include the report under Article 9 subparag. 3 of the Rules of Employment in “an external announcement, such as the publication, lectures, etc.”

In light of the following: (a) Article 9 subparag. 3 of the Rules of Employment provides for the contents related to the company’s business or employee’s duties; (b) publishing, lectures, etc.; (c) the term “person subject to reporting” appears to be an example of external announcements subject to reporting in the interpretation of the provisions; and (c) the instant interview is similar to or similar to the act of exposing opinions or facts through external media and included in the scope of external announcements, it is reasonable to deem that the instant interview constitutes subject to reporting under the Rules of Employment. Therefore, the foregoing assertion by Plaintiffs Kim○-○ and Kim○○○ is without merit.

2) In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action for the reason of disciplinary action, what kind of disciplinary measure is to be taken shall be left at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to abuse the discretionary power that has been left to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure because the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure is unlawful. If the disciplinary measure is deemed to be an unlawful measure beyond the scope of discretionary power because it has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the contents and nature of the disciplinary measure, the purpose of the disciplinary measure to achieve by the disciplinary measure, the criteria for the disciplinary measure, etc. are clearly unreasonable and clearly determined (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da60890, 60906, Aug. 23, 2002, etc.).

B) Based on the above legal principles, the above facts were revealed in addition to the overall purport of the pleading, and the following circumstances such as ① 'the current ○○○○' and the reporters in charge of the production of the broadcast broadcast program frequently conducted in relation to the selection of the broadcast broadcast program, and the internal complaints were very high, ② The interview of this case mainly took place by the chief’s unilateral instructions without a normal debate, and it appears to have been carried out in the intent of demanding the Defendant to report fair and neutral broadcast, ③ Plaintiff Kim○, and Kim○○○, which reported in advance an interview to the highest ○○○ who was in charge of the broadcast as a direct superior, and ④ Plaintiff Kim○, and Kim○○○○, that there was no record of being subject to disciplinary action by the Defendant prior to the above suspension disposition, and thus, the disposition against the Plaintiff ○○○, Kim○, and Kim○○ was unlawful because it excessively deviates from and abused the right of suspension discretion by taking account of the degree of misconduct committed by the Defendant.

3. Whether a disposition of suspension from office against the Plaintiff 200 is legitimate

A. It is unreasonable to make a report inappropriate in the absence of accurate confirmation of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1).

The judgment of the court below revealed the opinion that it is difficult to produce so-called ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ did not violate the instant Ra or the rules of employment. Therefore, the grounds for the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff ○○○ is not recognized

2) Even if the grounds for the disciplinary action are recognized, the suspension disposition against the Plaintiff ○○ is a deviation from and abuse of the Defendant’s discretionary power.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 4, 2012, the Defendant’s news report director decided to publish news reports related to the suspicion of the Do governor of the instant ○○ Scholarship Association, following discussions with the 1st head of the society of the news bureau. 2) On the same day, ○○ instructed the Plaintiff Gangwon-do to prepare an explanatory note on the “○○○○○ Scholarship Association’s suspicion of Do governor and the “Notice of Summons for ○○○○○○○○○ Scholarship.” However, ○○ refused this. 3) on the same day, ○○ directly drafted an explanatory note on the Do governor’s suspicion of the above ○○○ Scholarship on the same day, and the news was reported.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 6 evidence, testimony of the witness ○○○○ and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Whether the grounds for disciplinary action violate the rules of employment

The instant guidelines are interpreted to the effect that, in the event of a conflict between the reporter in charge and the program manager’s opinions in determining whether to select the subject matter, the person in charge and the person in charge of the program may apply for the adjustment of opinions against the upper person in charge of the program, and that the upper person in charge may make a decision on whether to mediate the case. Accordingly, in order for the Plaintiff ○○○ to be deemed to be in violation of the instant guidelines by refusing the adjustment of the upper person in charge of the program, the application for the adjustment of opinions against the upper person should be at least presumed, and the Plaintiff ○○○ did not have the duty to apply for the adjustment of opinions to the Plaintiff ○○○○○. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff ○○○○ did not have the duty to apply for the adjustment of opinions. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff ○○○○ violated the instant guidelines. Accordingly, this part of the grounds for disciplinary action is not recognized.

Considering the following circumstances that can be seen in addition to the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, i.e., (i) the act of misconduct by the plaintiff Gangwon-do, which is a mere refusal of instruction, that is, it is difficult to deem that the defendant's news reports significantly interfered with the defendant's news, and (ii) the plaintiff Gangwon-do has no record of disciplinary action taken by the defendant prior to the above suspension of office, the suspension of office against the plaintiff Gangwon-do, was excessively harsh in light of the degree of the above misconduct by the plaintiff Gangwon-do, and thus,

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified and they are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall hear the number of judges

Judges Kim Dong-dong

Judges Song Jae-chul