(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.02 2016구합75579

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) 서울행정법원 2017.11.02 2016구합75579

부당해고구제재심판정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor is operating “C” and “D” (hereinafter “instant facilities”) as a social welfare foundation.

On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor and served as the secretary general of the instant facility from May 6, 2015.

B. On December 21, 2015, the Intervenor held a personnel committee and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff as of January 24, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 76 subparag. 3 and subparag. 4 of the Intervenor’s Operational Rules as follows, and notified the Plaintiff on December 24, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal.” The Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the Intervenor Personnel Committee, but the said Committee dismissed it on January 20, 2016.

The grounds for disciplinary action No. 1 continued to infringe on the human rights of employees by exercising language violence against the employees of the instant facilities, and thereby severely damages the honor of the Intervenor and the instant facilities among the employees and local residents.

The honor of the participants and its affiliated facilities was undermined by the meeting of the conference of the head of the facilities held by the participants and the chief of the facilities.

In order to dismiss the employees of the middle manager's position, it was forced that the employees of the middle manager's position would be dismissed, and if not, they would have to go to the employee.

It forced an employee on a maternity leave to work, and infringed on human rights by using speech and verbal abuse suggesting dismissal.

The grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 rejected a normal approval on the ground that it does not comply with his/her own principles in the daily work of daily work, thereby hindering the work of the facility of this case and impairing the order of deceptive scheme, which did not report to the director of the facility who is a superior.

The program is linked with the external ILO center, which is a normal business set out in the direction of the 3th Disciplinary Reason.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2021.02.05 2018구합51997

-서울행정법원 2014.10.23 2013구합18650

-서울행정법원 2018.06.12 2017구합79035

-서울행정법원 2018.01.19 2016구합83143

-서울행정법원 2019.05.02 2018구합71922