beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 1, 1983, Plaintiff A is a member of the Defendant and is a member of the D branch's business support division and vice head; Plaintiff B is a member of the E branch's business support division and vice head on January 21, 1990; Plaintiff C is a member of the F Service Center's customer support team division, who was employed on February 21, 1983.
B. The Defendant took disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs on March 17, 201, the first instance court’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff A and B on March 17, 201, following the grounds for disciplinary action under Articles 5 (Principle of Good Faith), 6 (Principle of Good Faith), 31 (4) and (5), 31 (4), 7, 14, 16, and 18 (Notice of Disciplinary Action) of the Rules of Employment of Each Executive Member, and notified the Plaintiff C of the disciplinary action on March 18, 201. On March 22, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disciplinary action under Articles 5 (Principle of Good Faith), 6 (Principle of Good Faith), 31 (4), 41 (4), (5), 31 (4), 14, 16, 1318 (1) of the Rules of Employment of the first instance court’s disciplinary action.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disciplinary dismissal”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul’s evidence No. 1 to 3, Eul’s evidence No. 14 to 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) The defendant's disciplinary committee's provision of dismissal procedure 1) provides that the disciplinary committee shall be held within 30 days from the time of the occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action, but the defendant held the disciplinary committee 30 days from the date of the occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action. Thus, the dismissal of the disciplinary action in this case is null and void due to the lapse of the prescription period prescribed by the rules of employment or in violation of the
B. The defendant did not notify the dismissal of specific grounds for dismissal in the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action. Since the plaintiff C did not notify the time of dismissal, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is applied.