logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.11.19 2018구합104756
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The intervenor is a legal entity that ordinarily employs 544 workers and engages in the manufacturing of steel and others.

On May 28, 2007, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor as a management officer, and served as a senior steel inspector for about 14 months from September 1, 2008 to November 5, 2009. Since then, the Plaintiff has served as an senior steel inspector for the senior steel tallying team from March 2, 2017 through the senior steel tallying team, Daejeon business office, Seoul Business Team, etc.

B. On November 28, 2017, the Intervenor held a disciplinary committee and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff for the following reasons, and notified the Plaintiff of the dismissal as of January 18, 2018 in accordance with the disciplinary committee’s resolution on December 19, 2017.

(1) On March 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was placed in a position to conduct the scrap tallying work and was in a position to conduct the scrap tallying work, and the scrap tallying duty is an important duty to determine the class (price) of scrap tally, which is the raw materials entered in us. In particular, high level of integrity is required in relation to the class in relation to the duties. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s rules are complied with and the duties assigned in accordance with the criteria for the tallyping of scrap are faithfully and transparently performed. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s act of receiving money and valuables from the representative of a specific supplier (D) and abuse of authority to conduct the scrap tally raising the class of the class of the scrap tallying work (determined to heavy weight B-Wing weight C-Wing metal) and caused the intervenors to incur monetary damage ($ 8,280,000), and the Intervenor’s act of performing the Intervenor’s duty of good faith and duty of good faith under Article 6(2)6(3) of the Rules of the Intervenor’s.

arrow