Whether the notification procedure which was conducted bruptly without sufficient time to prepare the vindications and explanatory materials for the person subject to disciplinary action to whom the opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and submit the vindications and explanatory materials is legitimate (negative), and whether the disciplinary action based on the resolution of the disciplinary committee is legitimate (negative)

[1] Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da8077 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 960 delivered on February 8, 1991) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24475 delivered on October 24, 2003, 24482

Friend Country

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Maximum Water Group

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu11273 delivered on November 21, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

In the collective agreement, rules of employment or disciplinary regulations, where a person to be disciplined has been given an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and make a vindication and submit explanatory materials, he/she shall notify the date, time and place of the meeting within a reasonable period to prepare explanatory and explanatory materials, even if there is no particular provision regarding the timing and method of the notification, and even if there is no sufficient time to prepare such explanatory and explanatory materials, the notification which was made brutly without giving sufficient time to prepare such explanatory and explanatory materials shall be deemed unlawful since it does not deprive him/her of the opportunity to submit explanatory and explanatory materials. Even if a person to be disciplined was present and made a statement at the disciplinary committee and made a statement, the disciplinary action which would be based on the resolution of the disciplinary committee violates the disciplinary procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da8077 delivered on July 9, 191).

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and found that the rules of employment of a specialized driving school for the driving of a motor vehicle provide a person subject to disciplinary action with an opportunity to present himself/herself and present arguments and supporting materials. Thus, the defendant joining the defendant should notify the plaintiff of the date and time and location of the meeting within a reasonable period to prepare arguments and supporting materials, but it is not confirmed whether the notice of the meeting of the disciplinary committee was issued on January 26, 2001 and the notice of the meeting of the disciplinary committee decided to be disciplinary action was delivered to the plaintiff's house on the date of the meeting of the disciplinary committee, and even if it was made before the meeting of domestic affairs, it is unlawful for the plaintiff to be present at the disciplinary committee without sufficient time to prepare arguments and supporting materials, and therefore, the decision of this case and retrial was unlawful. In light of the above legal principles and records, the defendant's allegation that the above notice of the disciplinary committee did not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the legal principles of the employer's grounds for appeal.

In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defect in notification inappropriate is cured because the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the plaintiff had a close liaison with other persons to be disciplined and did not have any other evidence to acknowledge the fact that he had known the fact that the plaintiff had been holding the disciplinary committee in advance, since the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that he had been holding the disciplinary committee. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are correct, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegality of the disciplinary procedure or the recovery of the defect.

Meanwhile, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff neglected the rules of employment or the decision of the disciplinary committee itself on the ground that he did not attend each disciplinary committee and did not raise any objection against the resolution of the disciplinary committee. Even if there exists any substantive reason to justify dismissal, the assertion of invalidation of disciplinary action on the ground of the defect in the disciplinary procedure is the right of the person subject to disciplinary action, and thus, it cannot be deemed as violating the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is not acceptable. Further, unless the court below judged that the disciplinary dismissal of this case was null and void because it violated the rules of employment on the disciplinary procedure and did not make a substantive decision on the grounds of disciplinary action, unless there is a substantial justifiable reason in the disciplinary dismissal of this case, or the plaintiff did not have an intention to work for the specialized elderly driving school, such as employment, etc. of another company, and even if there was a defect in the procedure of disciplinary action, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the result of disciplinary action is valid in conformity with the intent of the plaintiff who is subject

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)