(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.01.04 2018누51258

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.01.04 2018누51258

부당해고구제재심판정취소

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the decision is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. On July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff Intervenor interfered with the fair exercise of voting rights by disciplinary committee members through intimidation remarks that would give disadvantages to disciplinary committee members if he/she was present at the Disciplinary Committee held on July 8, 2015, and thus, the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the second ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the second ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the disciplinary action. Furthermore, the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the first and fifth ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the disciplinary action is appropriate since the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was breached to the extent that it could not be recovered. 2) The Defendant and the Intervenor did not unilaterally use the grounds for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the disciplinary action.

In addition, the intervenor obtained the oral approval of the plaintiff's side for the outside lecture, and intentionally did not unfairly demand overtime pay, and the ground for the fourth ground for the disciplinary action does not constitute justifiable grounds.

The Intervenor and K are required by learners to disclose data.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.1.4. 선고 2018누51258 판결

-서울행정법원 2018.5.25. 선고 2017구합56872 판결

-서울행정법원 2011.01.27 2009구합29257

-서울행정법원 2017.08.25 2017구합176