logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.02.07 2013나25400
해고무효확인 등
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant against Plaintiff A and B on March 18, 201, and against Plaintiff C on March 23, 2011.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On June 1, 1983, Plaintiff A entered the Defendant and worked as the business support division and vice head of the D branch, Plaintiff B entered on January 21, 1990, and Plaintiff C entered on February 21, 1983, and the director of the F Service Center Customer Support Team.

On March 17, 2011, the defendant notified the plaintiff A and B that the disciplinary dismissal was decided as of March 18, 201 due to the violation of Articles 5 (Principle of Good Faith), 6 (Principle of Good Faith), 31 (4), 3, 7, 14, 16, and 18 of the Rules of Employment of Each Executive Member.

On March 22, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff C of his decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action on March 23, 2011 on the ground of the violation of Articles 5 (Principle of Good Faith), 6 (Principle of Good Faith), 31 (4), (5), 41 (Disciplinary Dismissal) and (3), 14, 16, and (18) of the Rules of Employment of Executive Members.

The defendant's illegal rules of dismissal procedure for the plaintiffs' claims for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal as a whole are stipulated that the disciplinary committee shall be held within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action, although the defendant held the disciplinary committee within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action, since the disciplinary committee was held with the intention of 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action, each of the grounds for disciplinary action in this case is intended to be subject to the disciplinary action prescribed by the rules of employment, or it is null and void in violation of the effective rules of disciplinary procedure.

The defendant did not notify the dismissal of specific grounds for dismissal in the dismissal of each of the disciplinary actions in this case, and the plaintiff C.

arrow