logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.11 2017누71965
부당징계구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff’s assertion under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) The court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on February 2, 2007, even if the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court were examined, the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable.

A. The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) it was true that a railroad union union’s vote for and against union members on the wage negotiations in 2013 prior to the first strike; (b) it did not go through the procedure for wage negotiations because it was related to “domination against the establishment of the KTX corporation;” (c) even if there was a pro-con vote on wage negotiations, it did not go through the procedure as to the pending issues of the instant case, which are the matters newly added.

However, from November 20, 2013 to November 22, 2013, a union member vote on wage negotiations in 2013 (hereinafter “instant pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-con voting”), and the fact that the instant strike was conducted on February 25, 2014 as the main requirements for wage negotiations in 2013 and the instant pending issues, is as seen earlier. As such, it is difficult to view that the instant strike’s purpose is distinguishable from the pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-con voting that is included in the main agenda.

Even if a new dispute, such as the pending issue, was added, it can be said that it was one of the main purposes of the strike of this case and that the wage negotiations in 2013, which constituted working conditions, were not resolved at the time of the first strike.

arrow