The effect of a de facto disciplinary action, which does not give any opportunity to defend himself/herself by issuing an order of standby and automatically dismissing him/her;

If the defendant corporation has been automatically dismissed after the lapse of two months in accordance with the personnel regulations of the defendant corporation, it is generally accepted as a means of sanctions against the illegal employees, even if the reason is not specified, it is generally accepted as one of the means of sanctions against the illegal employees.

Plaintiff

Defendant Incorporated Foundation

Busan District Court (79 Ghana746)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant's action against the plaintiff on March 26, 1979 and the action against the plaintiff on January 25 of the same year are confirmed to be null and void.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

(1) The defendant Incorporated Foundation (hereinafter only referred to as the defendant Incorporated) issued a standby order on January 25, 1979 with respect to the plaintiff who had worked as the chief deliberation officer of the Busan District Office, and was dismissed on March 26 of the same year after the second month thereafter. The reason for the disposition is no dispute between the parties concerned that not only caused the plaintiff to work in the Busan District Office of the defendant Incorporated but also caused the non-party 1 to work in the Busan District Office of the defendant Incorporated with no remuneration for 2 months remaining after the non-party 1, who had not been employed arbitrarily by the plaintiff, but also caused the plaintiff to work as a chief officer, and received money of KRW 1,00,000,000, and even before that, even if he had been issued the standby order as a flight, it again caused the above mistake and damaged the reputation of the defendant Incorporated.

(2) The plaintiff, as the cause of the claim of this case, did not receive money in favor of the non-party 1 as a member of the staff, and the personnel regulations of the defendant corporation did not stipulate the grounds for giving a standby order. The disposition of this case by the defendant corporation without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to give a standby order shall be null and void as a mistake of the grounds for the disposition or a part of the procedure for the disposition, and even if it is not so, the disposition of this case by the defendant corporation shall be null and void as a result of the mistake of the grounds for the disposition or the part of the procedure for the disposition, and even if it is not so, even if it has served for a long period of more than 10 years,

(3) First of all, considering the plaintiff's assertion of the reasons for the disposition of this case, it is difficult to examine the plaintiff's assertion of the reasons for the disposition of this case, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (Listening to telephone communications contents), which can be recognized as the authenticity by the non-party Nos. 5's testimony, the plaintiff's testimony and part of the above witness and non-party Nos. 3 and non-party No. 1's testimony, the plaintiff introduced non-party Nos. 1 who wish to attend a broadcasting station through the non-party No. 5's non-party No. 8's non-party No. 1,500,000 won, and the plaintiff's testimony cannot be acknowledged as the non-party No. 9's testimony and the non-party No. 1's non-party No. 8's testimony to find the defendant No. 900,000 won and the non-party No. 1's. 100.

(4) Next, we examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In full view of the contents of evidence No. 2-1 (the provision), evidence No. 2-8 (the personnel regulations and minutes of the personnel committee) without dispute over the establishment, and the whole purport of the arguments by Non-Party 2, the defendant corporation's personnel management regulations at the time of the disposition of this case provide that "if two months have passed since he was issued a standby order, he shall be retired from office, and his status as an employee shall be lost," and Article 54 of the personnel management regulations of the defendant corporation provides that "any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be subject to disciplinary action by reprimand, salary reduction, suspension from office, or dismissal according to the seriousness of the act," and one of the reasons for disciplinary action is "any person who fails to comply with other provisions of the country or who has committed an act contrary to this part of the personnel committee or who has damaged the reputation of the country." However, in any case, it does not explicitly provide for the above reasons for issuing a standby order (Article 19 of the above personnel management regulations after this case and the reason for issuing the standby order cannot be acknowledged.)

However, considering the whole contents of Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8 (in the absence of dispute over the establishment, notification of facts, personnel order, minutes of personnel committee) and Eul evidence Nos. 12-1, 2 (In the case of the above witness non-party 2's testimony, the defendant corporation has long been subject to disciplinary reasons under Article 54 of the above regulations, and the defendant corporation has been dismissed from office due to disciplinary action against his employees who should be considered to the extent of the reason, and it does not immediately issue a standby order for dismissal without being subject to disciplinary action against the disadvantage of future status status such as transfer of occupation, etc. If it submits a resignation within two months, it shall be processed as a member's dismissal (in accordance with the time, it shall be assigned to the defendant corporation's office and if it is deemed necessary for the purpose of business of the defendant corporation) and the whole purport of the testimony of the above witness non-party 2, and it shall be confirmed that the defendant corporation's dismissal of the defendant corporation has been based on the above evidence No. 2608 of dismissal (the plaintiff's dismissal of 15).7).

In addition, according to the contents of evidence Nos. 2-1-2 (No. 1-2) and evidence Nos. 1-2 (No. 1-2) and 1-8 (Personnel Regulations, and the minutes of the personnel committee) and some testimony by Non-Party 2 of the above witness, although there is no express provision that the personnel regulations of the defendant corporation or the person subject to the disciplinary action should give the person subject to the disciplinary action or the person subject to the disciplinary action an opportunity to defend himself/herself, the personnel committee of the defendant corporation may allow Non-Party 2, the chairperson of the above committee, prior to the decision to issue a standby order, return the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and recognize that the result (the denial of receipt and payment of money) was known to each member of the committee, as long as the facts of this case were objectively clearly and clearly stated despite the plaintiff's vindication, the above resolution of the personnel committee did not directly attend the above committee and give him/her an opportunity to defend himself/herself, so it is not recognized that the above resolution of

(5) Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the disposition of this case is null and void as a matter of course is unreasonable, and thus, it shall be dismissed. Since the original judgment is deemed to be just and correct as it is in this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines