logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.11 2018나2053697
파면처분무효확인 등
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal, shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant did so to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the defendant's assertion about the "A" of the first instance court as "the defendant's assertion"; the witness of the 13th and 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 17th of the 17th of the 17th of the 17th of the 17th of the 17th of the 17th of the 17th of the 12th of the 19th of the 12th of the 19th of the 12th of the 19th of the 12th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 10th of the 10th of the 1st of the 10th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2.

2. Determination of the attached articles

A. As seen in the above cited part of the judgment as to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, it is reasonable to view that a disciplinary action constitutes an abuse of the right to discretion on disciplinary action, even if there is no or some grounds for disciplinary action related to the Plaintiff’s filing activities, words, etc. brought by the Defendant on the grounds of removal, or the Plaintiff’s filing of an appeal, and even if there is no or some grounds for disciplinary action related to the Plaintiff’s filing of an appeal, etc., such disciplinary action constitutes an abuse of the right to discretion on disciplinary action, as it considerably loses validity under social norms. The Defendant’s assertion to the purport that the Defendant’s testimony as to the grounds for appeal is insufficient to reverse the recognition or judgment of facts as to the pertinent cited part of this part, solely with the entries as indicated in No. 15, 20, 30,

B. As to the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 5,594,33 from March 1, 2017, which was the wages for which the obligation to pay to the Defendant was recognized, to the time the Plaintiff is reinstated, the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal at the trial, and March 31, 2019.

arrow