logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.01.17 2013누17598
부당해고및부당노동행위구제재심판정취소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this decision by this court is as follows, and the reasons for this decision are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 17th page of the first instance judgment, the volume added or removed is, under the second instance judgment, pending trial in the following cases: “In the case of consolidation of cases 201, 2011, 1373, 2012, 2012,784, the defendant is not guilty; the above violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) was found guilty; the above violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months, suspended sentence for 2 years; and both C and the prosecutor appealed as Seoul High Court 2013No2140, and they are still pending trial in the present appellate trial.

After the 19th 5th th 5th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

The first instance court's decision No. 22 1-11 (the part concerning the violation of the law) is as follows.

On October 6, 2011, the Plaintiff of Do Do Do Do 201, which was held on October 5, 201, stated on the grounds of disciplinary action that the Plaintiff made the above statement while notifying the Plaintiff of the result of the disciplinary deliberation on October 6, 201 (No. 42 evidence) and the personnel committee rejected the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on October 12, 201, and notified the Plaintiff by stating that the Plaintiff made the above statement while dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the grounds of disciplinary action.

The Plaintiff’s above remarks were not dealt with from the beginning as grounds for disciplinary action. However, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s above remarks were conducted on January 201.

arrow