(a) The effects of disciplinary action in which a member subject to exclusion was involved;

(b)the interpretation of the exclusion provision that is “a person related to the grounds for the disciplinary action”;

A. Among the operational regulations of the regional medical insurance association, the exclusion rules for the members of the disciplinary committee are mandatory provisions to exclude all relatives of the person subject to the disciplinary action or those related to the grounds for the disciplinary action from the disciplinary committee in order to guarantee fair and reasonable disciplinary rights. The disciplinary committee members with the grounds for exclusion are automatically excluded from the relevant performance of duties, and the exercise of the right to discipline in violation of the provision is null and void in the procedure regardless of whether the grounds for

B. In the exclusion provision under Paragraph (a), a relative of a person subject to disciplinary action or a person related to the grounds for disciplinary action refers to, instead, the victim of the grounds for disciplinary action who is identical with the person subject to disciplinary action, and the person related to the grounds for disciplinary action should be interpreted not to refer to all the persons related to the employer who intends to exercise the right to disciplinary action, but to the direct victim of the act corresponding to the specific grounds for disciplinary action, even if the specific grounds for disciplinary action are comprehensively taken into account.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 25 of the former Medical Insurance Act, Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Insurance Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Da7553 delivered on August 23, 1994

Plaintiff

Dongyang General Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Dongyang Special Metropolitan City and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na50293 delivered on November 8, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that "the relative of a disciplinary suspect among the members of the disciplinary committee or a person related to such disciplinary cause shall not participate in the deliberation of the disciplinary case" under Article 94 of the Regulations on the Operation of Regional Medical Insurance Associations (hereinafter "Operation Regulations"), which provides that "the defendant shall not be involved in the deliberation of the disciplinary case," but shall be determined based on whether all the members of the disciplinary committee were directly victims of the act of injury to which one of the six members of the disciplinary committee was committed to make a resolution against the plaintiff and the act of personal intercourse committed by the defendant union upon the resolution of the above disciplinary committee were four or more members, and the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff of the defendant union based on the resolution of the above disciplinary committee was not necessary to determine the existence of the disciplinary cause, and in full view of the main disciplinary cause, the determination of whether the disciplinary cause constitutes a person related to the disciplinary cause is a person related to the disciplinary cause, and shall be made based on whether all the members are the victim directly corresponding to the specific disciplinary cause.

Article 94 of the Operational Rules of the Defendant Union is a mandatory provision that intends to exclude all relatives of the person subject to disciplinary action or those related to the grounds for disciplinary action from the member of the disciplinary action in order to ensure fair and reasonable disciplinary action. A member subject to disciplinary action is automatically excluded from the performance of his duties, and the exercise of his right to disciplinary action in violation of the grounds for disciplinary action is null and void regardless of whether the grounds for disciplinary action are acknowledged. Here, a relative of the person subject to disciplinary action or those related to the grounds for disciplinary action refers to the person subject to disciplinary action who has interests with the person subject to disciplinary action or who is in the same relation with the grounds for disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da7553, Aug. 23, 1994). A person related to the grounds for disciplinary action refers to the victim of the grounds for disciplinary action, not to refer to all those related to the employer who intends to exercise his right to disciplinary action, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for exclusion.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, although the defendant has asserted as stated in the ground of appeal in the court below, it is evident that there is no dispute over the total amount of the plaintiff's wages to be paid to both parties during the period from October 11, 1991 to December 31, 1993 as of October 4, 1994, the date of final pleading in the court below's final pleading, and from October 11, 1991 to December 31, 1993, the total amount of the plaintiff's wages to be paid to both parties is 25,814,793, and the monthly wage in 1994 is 1,240,021, so the defendant shall be deemed to have withdrawn all the previous defense methods of the plaintiff's wage amount and shall be deemed to have led to confession. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal on the premise

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)