The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff could not be deemed as obstructing the Defendant’s business on January 16, 2010.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, dismissal is justified in cases where there are grounds for an employee's responsibility to the extent that the employee's employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms. Whether dismissal has reached the extent that the employee's employment relationship with the employee concerned cannot be continued by social norms shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the purpose and characteristics of the employer in question, conditions of the workplace, status and duties of the employee in question, motive and circumstance of the act of misconduct, influence on the company's business order such as the risk of disturbing the company's deceptive order, and past attitude of work. However, if there are several suspicions of disciplinary action against the employee, it shall not be determined with only one of the grounds for such

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21962 Decided March 24, 201, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s act of verbal abuse, insult, and assault against a superior constituted a cause for disciplinary action stipulated by the Defendant’s rules of employment. However, the Plaintiff’s act of assault against a superior of April 19, 2010 constitutes contingent, and is likely to cause the Defendant’s representative director F and the head of labor-management cooperation office G, and the degree of assault is relatively easy, such as the Plaintiff’s act of assault against a superior of his/her superior of his/her rank when he/she