2013Kahap778 Honorary Disturbing Provisional Disposition

1. ○ Construction Co., Ltd.

During Ansan-si, 00 ○

Representative Director ○ Kim

2. ○ Industry Co., Ltd.

Sung-nam-ro, Seo-gu, Sungnam-si ○

Representative Director ○ Kim

3. ○○.

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ajsanro 00

Creditors' Law Firm (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC)

Attorney Ahn Young-soo

New○ (000000 - 000000)

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul High Military Prisoners of War 84-ro 0

6 March 2014

1. All applications filed by applicants are dismissed.

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

The respondent shall directly engage in, or have a third party engage in, the conduct as shown in the separate sheet.

disclosure or indirect compulsory performance (in the event of a violation, 10,00,000 won per time) shall not be made. Such disclosure or indirect compulsory performance shall be made

1. Basic facts

According to the overall purport of the record and examination of this case, the following facts are substantiated:

A. The applicant ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “applicant ○○ Construction”) is a company that runs civil engineering, construction, or golf course cooking business, and the applicant ○○ Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “applicant ○○○ Industries”) is an affiliate of the applicant ○○ Construction, which is a company that operates golf course creation and operation, real estate development, and investment business, and the applicant ○○○ is a person who serves as the head of the personnel team of ○○ Construction.

2) On March 26, 2012, the respondent was subject to disciplinary action on August 13, 2013 on the ground of "unauthorized absence from office or bad neglect from office from the applicant ○ Leisure Industry" while he/she was engaged in a construction business by being employed as a career worker in the applicant ○○ Construction, and on April 1, 2013, he/she was transferred to the applicant ○○ Leisure Industry.

B. From March 26, 2012, the respondent worked for the applicant ○○ Construction, and worked for the applicant ○○○ Leisure Industry upon the recommendation of the creditor, the head of the early team team, ○○○○ (hereinafter “former”) on April 26, 2013. In such a case, the respondent prepared a private employee (the reason for resignation is stated as “transfer of affiliates”) whose date was recorded retroactively as of March 31, 2013, and submitted it to the applicant ○○ Construction.

2) From April 17, 2013, the respondent started to work in the applicant’s ○○ Leisure Industry, and was placed in the Kimpo Real Estate Development Team, and was assigned by Hong○○, the team leader, with the preparation of support work for Kimpo Real Estate Development Projects and the overall department meetings.

3) On May 2, 2013, the respondent sent e-mail to ○○○○ who was the applicant for ○○ Construction and sent e-mail to the applicant, and the respondent merely stated the written resignation through unfair coercion, and there is no sign of consent to the transfer of this case, and thus the transfer of this case is unfair. The respondent asserted that the respondent met with the respondent on May 3, 2013 on the following day. The respondent asserted that the transmission of the applicant was unfair, and the respondent argued that the transmission of the applicant was unfair, and the applicant sent the respondent again sent the e-mail to the respondent that was made on the basis of the respondent’s voluntary will. The applicant sent the e-mail to the above purport at around 3 p.m. on the same day.

4) On May 2013, 2013, the head of the Kimpo Real Estate Development Team, the respondent, was the head of the Kimpo Real Estate Development Team, who was affiliated with the respondent, transferred to this ○○, a superior of the respondent the preparation work of the whole part of the department assigned to the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent did not impose specific duties any longer (the applicant ○○ Leisure Industry inevitably transferred the respondent’s work to this ○○○ because the respondent was unable to attend the company at his own discretion, such as the respondent's failure to work at the company from around that time. However, the respondent asserts that the applicant ○○ Leisure Industry created "a situation equivalent to the standby order, in which the respondent does not actually perform his/her duties by transferring his/her duties."

5) After that, between May 14, 2013 and August 12, 2013, the respondent had worked in the applicant's ○○ Leisure Industry and had repeated actions such as leaving the company without permission by the respondent (the respondent asserts that the respondent was absent from the company without permission, but the respondent asserts that the respondent would have carried out business activities outside the company). Accordingly, the applicant's ○○ Leisure Industry notified the respondent of the fact that "the personnel committee was held at the meeting room on August 13, 2013 with respect to the absence without permission," and the respondent appeared in the meeting room on August 13, 2013 and notified the respondent of the result that the respondent did not appear without permission, but the result of the resolution of the personnel committee was expressed to the respondent.

C. Circumstances after the respondent was dismissed

1) On August 14, 2013, 2013: 03: 57 around 14, 2013: (a) the respondent sent e-mail to the executives and employees of the ○○○ Group by using the e-mail account of the e-mail of the ○○○ Group; (b) the Respondent was unfairly transferred from the ○○ Construction to the applicant ○○ Leisure Industry; (c) the Respondent was made in writing without any ground for the ○○○○ Construction to the applicant; (d) the Respondent made the Respondent and submitted the Respondent after making the Respondent in a state equivalent to the dae Order. At present, in the ○○○ Construction, ○○○ Construction, the Respondent was in force without justifiable grounds, and the Respondent was threatened by the personnel committee to prepare the immediately preceding written resignation, and in such circumstances, the Respondent has no choice but to dispute by using the form of a trade union.

2) On November 16, 2013: Around 20: (a) one person who is an officer or employee of the ○○○○○○ Group, and the ○○○○○○○○○ Group’s president, using a ticket at the entrance of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government University Hospital; (b) one person, including the ○○○○○ Group’s employees, started working on the Respondent; (c) two persons, including the ○○○ Group’s employees, reported the Respondent to the police; and (d) the police assigned the Respondent to the site on the ground of the ○○○○○○○○ Group’s 2ndm of working on the Respondent, including the Respondent’s 2nd of working on the Respondent○○○○○○ Group’s 2nd of working on the Respondent○○○○○ Group’s 2nd of working on the Respondent○ Group’s 3rd of working on the Respondent and the Respondent’s 30th of working on the Respondent group’s.

In order to open B, a paper written by the respondent to the ○○ Group to the effect that the trade union is necessary is displayed on the screen.

5) Meanwhile, although the respondent filed an application for unfair dismissal against the applicant ○○ Leisure Industry with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, on November 19, 2013, the above application for dismissal was dismissed on the grounds that the grounds for disciplinary action, disciplinary procedure, and disciplinary action against the respondent cannot be deemed unlawful (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2013da000), and the respondent filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the application for reexamination was dismissed on February 17, 2014 (the Central Labor Relations Commission 2013da000 and the current administrative litigation lawsuit period was not over fixed).

2. Applicant's assertion

All of the disciplinary dismissals of the previous register and the respondent are justifiable, and there was no fact that the respondent was placed in a situation equivalent to the standby order, or that the respondent was forced to submit a letter of apology to the respondent, and there was no fact that the applicants threatened the survival rights of employees through the restructuring, or acted to make the respondent into "in-house king" due to the petitioner's malicious written action without the ground of the ○○○○○ employee, etc., and despite the absence of the fact that the ○○ Group employees et al. did not act and inspected the Respondent, the Respondent continues to engage in the acts that harm the reputation, credit, etc. of the applicants by publishing the completion as if the above assertion was true.

In addition, the respondent transmits e-mail or text messages that contain false facts using the e-mail or contact information of the executives and employees collected at the time of serving in the applicant ○○ Construction and ○○ Leisure Industry. This is not permissible as it infringes on the applicant’s right to manage information on the executives and employees of the applicant ○○ Construction and ○○ Leisure Industry.

Nevertheless, the respondent is willing to infringe upon the applicant's honor, credit, etc. by more active action, and such action is likely to cause a serious obstacle to the applicant's business in the future. Therefore, the applicants seek provisional disposition such as personal rights (right of honor) and goodwill based on the purport of the application.

3. Determination

A. Determination on an application for personal right (right of honor) as a preserved right

1) Inasmuch as the legal principles regarding the requirements for prohibiting expressive acts are very important legal interests with respect to life and body, and honorary rights as personality rights are the same as in the case of real rights, a person who illegally infringes on an objective reputation, which is received from the society with respect to the character value of a person, such as character, morals, reputation, and credit, may seek injunction against infringement to exclude or prevent infringement that may be caused by the perpetrator based on his/her reputation rights. However, even in cases of expressive acts that may cause infringement, prior restraint on expressive acts shall not be permitted in light of the purport of Article 21(2) of the Constitution prohibiting the guarantee of freedom of expression and censorship. However, in such a case, where the content of such expressive act is not true or its purpose is not solely for the public interest, and where such expressive act is likely to cause damage to the victim significantly and remarkably difficult, such expressive act shall not be permitted for the sake of protecting the victim’s reputation, and it shall not be permissible for the victim to have more than for the purpose of protecting the victim’s moral rights than for the victim.

C) On the other hand, "real facts" among the above requirements means facts that are consistent with objective facts in light of the purport of the whole contents, and even if there is a little difference from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression, "public interest" means not only the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interests of a specific social group or a whole of its members, and if it is for the major purpose of public interest, it may be difficult to say that there were other incidental purposes (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da306, Mar. 23, 2006).

Supreme Court Decisions 52142; 2008Do6342 Decided November 13, 2008)

In light of the above legal principles, the part that the applicant was subject to unfair dismissal for each of the acts listed in the separate sheet, for which prior prohibition is sought.

In addition, the respondent's assertion that the respondent was unfair from the applicant's ○○ Leisure Industry can be at least an examination of the applicant's ○○ Leisure Industry and ○○ Group's officers and employees as a specific social group, so it can be seen as an act for "public interest".

The respondent filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair dismissal, but was dismissed, and was in the same time dismissed.

Even if an application for review was dismissed by an applicant for it, the respondent has been subject to disciplinary action against himself/herself and without permission that served as the basis thereof until now (at least in most cases from May 14, 2013 to August 12, 2013 in which the respondent is at issue, the office appears to have been absent after having worked. The respondent asserts that he/she was outside or was not required to take a job because he/she was virtually excluded from work) In light of the fact that the expression claimed by the respondent does not fall under any content without any grounds or insulting to the degree that it is difficult to make it difficult for the respondent to make any means of expression, the respondent was subject to unfair dismissal on the sole basis of the judgment of the Labor Relations Commission which has not been finalized at the present stage. The prior prohibition of “in advance is likely to constitute infringement on the freedom of expression belonging to the respondent, and the applicant’s personal rights and personality rights are compared to the applicant’s (right of reputation) and thus, it cannot be readily concluded even if compared with the applicant’s personality rights.

B) The part of the wrongful transfer of the family register was faced with the situation corresponding to the order of standby between two months and two months.

section of this section, the part that was ordered to submit a letter of resignation, and the part that threaten the right of survival of its employees through restructuring, and that the recommended resignation, not an urgent reason, is deferred.

However, each of the above arguments can be seen as an act for "public interest" because at least an applicant who is a specific social group can be seen as an examination of the executives and employees of the ○○ Leisure Industry and ○○ Group. However, it is difficult to conclude that each of the above arguments is false on the sole basis of materials submitted by the applicant.

In addition, this part of the expressive act seems to be more focused on the "an evaluation" Na, and it seems that there is a dispute that ① whether the respondent has become a Respondent, but there is no dispute about whether this is unfair or not, ② whether the fact that the Respondent has not been actually assigned to the Respondent for about two months is a situation equivalent to the Respondent. ③ There is a dispute about whether the Respondent has been urged to resign, ③ whether the Respondent has been subjected to the submission of the Respondent's resignation or not, ④ whether some workers have been subject to the Respondent's resignation because there is no dispute about the Respondent's resignation, ④ whether the Claimant's resignation was threatened through the restructuring, but there is a dispute about whether the Respondent's resignation had some workers resign while re-convening the Respondent's human resources, and whether the Respondent's resignation could be limited to the Respondent's resignation, which is not an urgent reason, or whether the Respondent's prior evaluation or the Respondent's expression itself constitutes an essential expression of opinion itself.

C) The part that made the respondent into "in-house" with bad faith without any ground, and the part that the respondent is driving and inspecting;

However, even if the applicant's explanatory materials exist, there is no evidence to see that this part is false. Rather, in light of the respective statements of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, and 9, the Respondent's expressive method was somewhat exaggerated, but the above expressions are based on the circumstances that correspond to the facts.

D) Sub-decisions

In full view of the various circumstances as seen earlier, when comparing and balancing the applicant’s personality rights (right of honor) and the freedom of expression by the respondent, it is difficult to readily conclude that the materials submitted by the applicant have been substantiated as to whether the Respondent’s prior prohibition of expression against the Respondent met the requirements exceptionally permissible at the present stage. Therefore, the applicant’s personal rights (right of honor)

The application for provisional disposition of this case filed with the respondent as the preserved right shall be without merit.

B. Determination on the application for a goodwill as a preserved right

Then, the applicants seek a provisional disposition such as the statement in the purport of the application with the goodwill as the preserved right. However, as seen above, the respondent's act does not seem to have deviates from the scope of freedom of expression. However, the data submitted by the applicants alone cannot be deemed to have sufficiently explained that the respondent's act might cause serious harm to the applicant's business. Therefore, the applicant's application for provisional disposition seeking the respondent with the goodwill as the preserved right is without merit.

C. The applicant's right to information management or personal information infringement

Finally, the Respondent collected the e-mail address and contact address of the Respondent's executives and employees, and the Respondent sent e-mail or text message to the Claimant's executives and employees on the basis of the Respondent's information is likely to infringe on the Respondent's right to manage information or personal information. However, it is not clear whether the Respondent becomes aware of e-mail address and contact address of the Respondent's executives and employees in any way. Furthermore, even if the Respondent knows e-mail to the executives and employees by using the internal communication network as alleged by the Respondent, it cannot be concluded that this is unfair acquisition of personal information even if the Respondent becomes aware of the e-mail address of the Respondent's executives and employees, and even if there is concern about infringement of personal information, it is doubtful whether the Respondent can be viewed as

In addition, the respondent sent one e-mail ( August 14, 2013) and two text messages ( December 12, 2013, December 22, 2013, and December 22, 2013) to the executives and employees of the ○○ Group up to the present day, and thereafter, it seems that the respondent did not send e-mail or text messages to the employees and employees of the ○ Group. In this regard, it is difficult to view that there is a need for urgent conservation to seek the respondent from sending e-mail or text messages to the executives and employees of the ○ Group at the present stage.

Therefore, all of the applicants' applications for provisional disposition are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the applications in this case is without merit because there is a lack of vindication of the right to be preserved and the necessity of preservation, and it is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall re-leap of the board of directors;

Judges Domins

Judges Cho Min-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.