Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant corporation

November 6, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant confirmed that the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on September 9, 2009 is invalid.

1.1. Basic Facts

A. On March 12, 2009, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, an employee of the Defendant, and Nonparty 2, the Defendant’s president, sent to Nonparty 2, the Defendant’s president, a certificate of contents certifying the following issues: (a) failure of operational policies, such as bus operation order and frequency of operation, management of new human resources, management of unfair labor, etc.

B. On June 4, 2009, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit a written answer regarding the specific question as to the Plaintiff’s point of view, demanding that the Plaintiff clarify the grounds for the issue regarding the company’s corruption among the Plaintiff’s point of view.

C. On June 11, 2009, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 sent a written reply to the company’s question and presented the Defendant’s statement that they would directly call the Defendant’s president.

D. On June 24, 2009, the Defendant issued a warning to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff may be subject to disciplinary action if he/she asks for a written answer based on specific facts by July 3 of the same year and spreads false information without any grounds.

E. On August 10, 2009, the Defendant sent a notice to the Plaintiff that it would give the Plaintiff an opportunity to hold a disciplinary committee and make a statement of vindication. On the 25th of the same month, the Defendant made a decision to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff during the period of involuntary suspension from office for three months due to the following reasons (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for each subparagraph").

① The act of damaging the reputation and interfering with the business of the company (including the submission of a private statement and the end of the time), such as the abusive and verbal abuse against Nonparty 3, who is under education and supervision on October 9, 2003, and the managing director Nonparty 4’s non-party 4’s violation of a legitimate business order.

(2) Failure to drive a safe driving on January 24, 2004 due to a motor vehicle's contact accident at the south of a diving school on January 24, 2004

(3) Any act of failing to drive safely due to a drilling accident in September 3, 2004 (the submission of a end-down letter).

(4) The act of disrupting the order of operation due to the misappropriation on September 20, 204 (the submission of a letter of time)

(5) Damaging public confidence and honor of a company due to its passing through a stop without stopping on December 23, 2005 (Submission of a statement)

(6) The act of abusive language and abusive language for female employees in the accounting book on August 25, 2006.

(7) Failure to drive a safe driving due to a contact accident with a private taxi on February 17, 2007 (including the submission of a weekend).

8. Causing disturbance in the discipline and order of the workplace due to fighting with Nonparty 5 on April 15, 2008 (Submission of statements)

(9) Refusing to give written answers to verify the facts as to the content certification as of March 12, 2009 and to give written answers to re-request and to issue a disciplinary warning.

F. Upon filing an objection against the above disciplinary decision, the Defendant revoked the above disciplinary decision on August 25, 2009 against the Plaintiff on September 9, 2009, and imposed two months (from September 21, 2009 to November 20, 2009) in urgent suspension from office, flexible suspension from office, and disciplinary action against company entry prohibition during the period of disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2.2. Relevant Provisions

The defendant's employment rules

Article 26 (Prohibition of Access) Any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be prohibited from entering any place of business, accommodation, etc.:

(4) A person under a disciplinary disposition of suspension from office.

Article 62 (Disciplinary Grounds) Any company may, if any member falls under any of the following subparagraphs, take disciplinary measures according to the degree of his fact-finding:

3. Where the absence from office is repeated at least three times a month, or the absence from office is angled, early leave, or outing at least three times a month;

4. Where violation of the regulations, regulations, or employment rules is deemed that the attitude of service has not been improved by submitting a weekend, a written reason, a self-written statement, an explanatory note, etc. at least three times;

5. Where he/she causes, intentionally or by gross negligence, any trouble in the course of business or causes property damage to the company (including any accident resulting from the violation of ten ports and the violation of routes);

11. In case of spreading false information, impairing the external credibility and reputation of the company, or causing trouble to the business of the company, by reporting to the government agencies.

12. Where he discloses a company’s secret, or damages the company’s credit and reputation by a bad speech or behavior, will, etc. inside or outside the company.

13. Where he/she gives verbal abuse, assault, or abusive language, or interferes with business affairs to a member who conducts business in compliance with an order of the commercial supervisor or the commercial supervisor;

14. Where he/she fails to comply with an instruction to submit documents, such as an order to perform his/her duties, or a weekend, a written statement, or a person, and to serve on board;

31. Where the company fails to comply with justifiable instructions or orders of the company;

32. Where it is deemed reasonable to take disciplinary action against a disciplinary act which seriously undermines the order of management of the company.

Article 63 (Categories of Discipline)

(1) Types of disciplinary action shall be as follows:

1. Dismissal of disciplinary action: A measure of dismissal shall be taken immediately;

2. Recommending Agency: to retire by requiring the submission of resignations to the recommendations.

3. Suspension from office: The period of suspension from office shall not exceed three months, the status of a member shall be maintained, but he/she shall not engage in his/her duties, and the period of suspension from office shall be suspended from office for a fixed period of

4. Salary reduction: The amount of salary reduction per time shall be the amount half of one month’s average wages; and

5. Reprimand: A person who admonishs him for reflect, rectification, and in the future, and receives a written statement of time, reason, and self-statement.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Description of Evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleading

3. Determination as to the cause of the claim

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(9) Among the grounds for the Defendant’s refusal to answer written statements, the Defendant’s refusal to answer written statements does not violate the company’s regulations, and 6. The Defendant’s refusal to answer written statements does not constitute verbal abuse and abusive acts against female employees on August 25, 2006, and the remainder of 1 through 5, 7, and 8, the grounds for refusal to answer written statements cannot be subject to disciplinary action again on the ground that they had already been submitted and completed. Thus, the instant disciplinary action is null and void on the ground that the Defendant

In addition, the disciplinary action in the instant case is a disciplinary action that does not exist under the rules of employment, and thus the instant disciplinary action is null and void.

B. Determination on grounds of disciplinary action

Of the grounds for disciplinary action, the following facts are acknowledged: (i) through (5) and (7) the acts constituting the grounds for disciplinary action were committed, and accordingly, (ii) the four-time statements and two-time statements were submitted by the parties concerned, and (iii) the overall purport of the statements and arguments as set forth in subparagraph (iv) and (iv) the Plaintiff made accounting and verbal abuse to female employees on August 29, 2006; (iv) the Plaintiff refused the Defendant’s written reply demanding presentation of detailed grounds for the company’s corruption raised by the Plaintiff; and (v) the Defendant’s rules of employment stipulate that disciplinary action may be taken against the Plaintiff’s refusal of legitimate instructions.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff voluntarily raised a problem with respect to the matters of corruption of the company; (b) the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct a proper investigation upon the point of view in the workplace; and (c) the Plaintiff’s failure to submit specific statements or data on the matters it pointed out even after the fact; (d) it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s written response to the Plaintiff is a justifiable order and order to address the doubt against the issue raised by the Plaintiff; and (e) the Plaintiff’s failure to comply therewith constitutes “cases of failing to comply with the company’s legitimate instructions and orders” under Article 62 subparag. 31 of the Rules of Employment. 31 of the said Rules.

In addition, the Defendant submitted 4 times’ written statements and 2 times’s written statements due to the Defendant’s act (i) to which the cause for disciplinary action pertains, and the Defendant refused to comply with the company’s legitimate written answers as seen earlier. This constitutes “where the Defendant submitted three times’s written statements, reasons, written statements, and written statements, etc. and the duty attitude is deemed not to have been improved” under Article 62 subparag. 4 of the Rules of Employment, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a double disciplinary action

Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff has grounds for disciplinary action falling under Article 62 subparag. 4 and 31 of the Rules of Employment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on types of disciplinary action

According to the defendant's rules of employment, a person who is under a disposition of suspension from office is prohibited from entering his/her place of business (Article 26 (4)). In addition, if a person selects suspension from office as a kind of disciplinary action, he/she shall not engage in his/her duties during that period, and shall suspend his/her work (Article 63).

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of suspension from office for two months against the plaintiff at the same time is lawful as it is in accordance with the defendant's rules of employment. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)