[1] The standard for determining whether the act of misconduct in question constitutes a ground for disciplinary action in a case where the person having authority to take disciplinary action provides a term in the notice of disciplinary action to specify that the act of misconduct in question constitutes a ground for

[2] In a case where Party A’s personnel committee notified Party B of the dismissal of his dismissal to Party B, the case holding that Party B’s act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under the Rules of Employment, which violates Party B’s private rules, stating that “A’s act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action,” which is stipulated that “A’s act violates the rules of employment, and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action as stipulated under the Rules of Employment, by providing for “A’s act to respect mutual personality and to maintain the order of the workplace by maintaining the order of the workplace”, and reporting the personnel movement report reflecting this to the head of the news gathering center

[1] Whether a worker's act of misconduct constitutes a cause for disciplinary action should be determined by the disciplinary committee, etc. through specific materials, and whether the act of misconduct constitutes a cause for disciplinary action should be reasonably interpreted and determined by reasonable interpretation of the objective meaning of the provision stipulated in the rules of employment under the rules of employment. Therefore, in a case where the person having an authority to take disciplinary action provides a certain term in the notice of disciplinary action to express that the act of misconduct in question constitutes a cause for disciplinary action, the determination of whether the act of misconduct constitutes a cause for disciplinary action should be based on the meaning and content of the cause for disciplinary action stipulated in the rules of employment, such as the rules of employment, of the relevant workplace, in principle, on the basis of whether the act of

[2] In a case where Party A’s personnel committee notified Party B of the dismissal of his dismissal to Party B, the case holding that Party A’s personnel committee stated that “B did not have grounds for disciplinary action against Party B’s act constitutes tort under the Civil Act or defamation under the Criminal Act, and reported the personnel movement plan reflecting this to the news gathering center head, as well as that it committed serious maritime acts that interfere with reasonable personnel management and disturb workplace order, by providing the cause of unfair labor practice, and thereby interfere with reasonable personnel management and disrupt workplace order,” on the ground that Party A’s personnel committee appears to have expressed that “A’s act constitutes a tort under defamation” for the purpose of specifying or evaluating the act of misconduct under the rules of employment, and that Party B’s act does not constitute a tort under the Civil Act or a tort under the Criminal Act, and that only the rules of employment of Party A constitutes a tort under the rules of employment, and that Party A’s act constitutes a violation of the rules of employment with no explicit and reasonable basis to interpret the rules of disciplinary action in light of the objective and reasonable nature of the disciplinary action.”

[1] Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2014Du12765 Decided January 28, 2016 (Gong2020Ha, 1504) Supreme Court Decision 2016Du56042 Decided June 25, 2020 (Gong20Ha, 1504)

Plaintiff (KON Law Firm, Attorneys Kang Han-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Shin Hy-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2019Na2039742 decided August 28, 2020

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

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

1. Case history

A. On December 20, 2004, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant who is engaged in the broadcasting business, etc., and worked as Kameras. The Defendant, upon reorganization of the organization on December 2, 2012, established a news gathering center under the jurisdiction of the news reporting station to have the department, such as the political division to which the Kameras belongs, controlled the department.

B. On August 8, 2017, the Korean Press Union cultural broadcasting headquarters and the MBC video reporters association: (a) on the basis of the press conference held on August 8, 2017, the Defendant, inside the Defendant, analyzed and assessed the tendency of the Kamerass by dividing them into class 4 according to the company’s loyalty and the degree of participation in labor union formation; (b) written the “Kameras’s tendency analysis table” and the “documents of the Mameras’s character figure” (hereinafter “documents of this case”); (c) raised suspicions that there was any disadvantage in personnel affairs; and (d) on the following day, the Plaintiff, the author of the documents of this case, and the Nonparty, etc., the head of the news center,

C. From January 8, 2018 to March 22, 2018, Defendant Audit and Inspection Bureau conducted the “Special Audit and Inspection related to MBC BCables and Unfair Labor Practices” to reveal the suspicion of the execution of the instant documents, and as a result of the audit, determined that the Plaintiff participated in the preparation and execution of the instant documents, and requested the Defendant Personnel Committee to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

D. Based on the audit results, the Defendant Personnel Committee opened a personnel committee for the Plaintiff on May 3, 2018 and heard the Plaintiff’s vindication, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on May 14, 2018, and notified the Plaintiff of the dismissal on May 18, 2018 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

E. According to the notice of the dismissal disposition of this case, the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff are as follows: "The person subject to isolation", "those subject to release", "major observation", and "severable" classified as class 4 of the "Shomers", "Shomers", and "Shomers" (referring to the documents of this case) were prepared, and a personnel plan (hereinafter referred to as "the personnel of this case") which reflects his/her black list as a mail to the head of the Non-Party news gathering center and was carried out as a result of the execution of the plan." "The reasons for disciplinary action against the plaintiff are as follows: "The person's personnel management during this case was reported to the head of the Non-Party news gathering center as a mail, and without any objective evaluation data or reasonable grounds, arbitrarily prepared and delivered a black list according to arbitrary judgment on a specific object, thereby preventing the illegal act corresponding to defamation, as well as providing the parties with the grounds for unfair labor actions that are disadvantageous to personnel management, thereby hindering reasonable personnel management and impairing work

F. Based on the instant dismissal disposition, the Defendant is obligated to comply with the matters set forth in the rules of employment and the company’s regulations (Article 3), and shall not commit any act detrimental to the reputation and dignity of the company (Article 4), and may take disciplinary action following the deliberation of the personnel committee in cases falling under “when he/she violates the rules of employment” (Article 66) or “when he/she violates official duties” by respecting mutual personality (Article 4), “when he/she violates the rules of employment” (Article 66).

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the disciplinary action of this case against the plaintiff can be invalidated on the premise that the grounds of the disciplinary action against the plaintiff can be specified as a tort corresponding to defamation or insult by sharing the documents of this case containing defamation or insult with another person (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds of disciplinary action") under the premise that the plaintiff prepared the documents of this case and the written proposal of personnel movement reflecting the documents of this case, and reported the personnel movement of this case to the non-party who is the personnel management authority (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds of the disciplinary action of this case"), and that the personnel movement of this case took place on March 14, 2014 according to the personnel movement of this case, thereby participating in the non-party's unfair labor practices (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds of disciplinary action of this case"), and that the disciplinary action of this case can be specified as a tort corresponding to defamation or insult (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds of disciplinary action of this case") on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Whether a worker's act of misconduct constitutes grounds for disciplinary action should be determined by the disciplinary committee, etc. through specific data, and whether the act of misconduct constitutes grounds for disciplinary action should be reasonably interpreted and determined by reasonable interpretation of the objective meaning of the provisions prescribed by the grounds for disciplinary action under the rules of employment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du12765, Jan. 28, 2016; 2016Du56042, Jun. 25, 2020). Therefore, in cases where the person having authority over disciplinary action provides a certain term in the notice of disciplinary action to specify that the act of misconduct constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, the determination of whether the act of misconduct constitutes grounds for disciplinary action should be based on the meaning and content of the grounds for disciplinary action prescribed by the rules of employment, such as the relevant workplace’s rules, and only on the basis of whether the act of misconduct constitutes grounds for disciplinary action is included in the concept of terms written in the above notice of disciplinary action.

B. Review of the evidence and records duly adopted by the court below reveals the following facts.

1) The written notification of the result of deliberation by the personnel committee on the Plaintiff is indicated as the fact that the Plaintiff prepared the instant documents and the instant personnel movement report reflecting the instant documents, and the fact that the report was made to the Nonparty.

2) The above notice contains the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s misconduct constitutes a tort against defamation; (b) the Plaintiff’s misconduct constitutes “a cause of unfair labor practice” and “a serious maritime act that interferes with reasonable personnel management and disturbs workplace order.”

C. Examining the aforementioned facts and records in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s act of preparing, reporting, and delivering the instant documents and the instant personnel movement plan to other employees constitutes a violation of the Defendant’s bylaws, which stated that “the act of keeping workplace order by respecting mutual personality,” and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action stipulated in the rules of employment.”

1) Article 66 of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant provides for the grounds for disciplinary action in cases where there are 11 cases, including “when he/she has violated an official duty”, “when he/she has inflicted property damage on the company by intention or gross negligence”, “when he/she has divulged a company’s secret”, “when he/she has committed an act detrimental to the company’s reputation”, and “when he/she has violated the broadcasting principles and the code of ethics”. Meanwhile, the above rules of employment stipulate the provisions on the maintenance of dignity (Article 4), confidentiality on duty (Article 5), political neutrality (Article 6-1), prohibition of acceptance of improper solicitation and money, etc. (Article 6-2).

2) The Defendant Personnel Committee appears to have expressed Articles 4 and 66 of the Rules of Employment as the basis for the instant dismissal disposition that “an act of defamation has been committed” for the purpose of specifying or evaluating the act of misconduct, and it does not seem to have the ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct that constitutes tort under the Civil Act or defamation that constitutes a crime under the Criminal Act.

3) The Defendant’s rules of employment do not explicitly state that only civil or criminal acts constitute grounds for disciplinary action, and it is difficult to find objective and reasonable grounds to interpret the disciplinary provision in such a sense.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the grounds of disciplinary action, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct does not constitute tort on the grounds that it does not satisfy the requirements of public performance for the establishment of the crime of insult or defamation. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)