The case holding that, where the dismissal was made after the dismissal of disciplinary action and the notification of disciplinary action was made in addition to the grounds for the cancellation of employment during the period of time other than the grounds for disciplinary action, the dismissal cannot be deemed to exist as well as the dismissal as a cancellation of employment.

Where a ground for revoking employment is stated in addition to the grounds for revoking employment during the period of time in addition to the grounds for disciplinary action when the dismissal of disciplinary action is made and notification of disciplinary action is made, the dismissal shall not be deemed to exist as well as dismissal as a dismissal as a cancellation of employment.

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff

Daesung Electric Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na15019 delivered on September 16, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) stated the Plaintiff’s new facts on April 3, 191 and stated the Plaintiff’s new facts in the Plaintiff’s employment regulations, such as the Plaintiff’s entry of his/her employees into the Defendant Company as his/her production workers; (b) stated the first-year curriculum in the curriculum during his/her employment period; and (c) stated the Plaintiff’s final academic background during the first-year curriculum in his/her employment period; and (d) stated the Defendant Company’s new facts on June 26, 191 that the Defendant Company was dismissed on the ground that it did not submit a health examination certificate or a final academic background certificate; (b) stated that the Defendant Company would not be subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that it would not be subject to the said provision on the grounds that the Plaintiff would not have been subject to the said provision on the grounds that the Plaintiff would have been subject to disciplinary action for the first-year period after his/her entry into the Plaintiff’s new employment regulations (Article 35); (Article 43); and thus, the Defendant would not be aware at any time to the Plaintiff.

2. However, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and No. 7 employed by the court below, when the defendant referred the plaintiff to the disciplinary committee to punish the plaintiff and notify the plaintiff of disciplinary action through a disciplinary resolution, it is acknowledged that the defendant added Article 18(2) (documents submitted) of the collective agreement, which is not a ground for disciplinary action, but a ground for cancellation of employment, as well as Article 34(2) (violation of a pledge, etc.) of the Rules of Employment, as a ground for disciplinary action. Thus, as long as the defendant dismissed the plaintiff in the form of disciplinary dismissal through the disciplinary procedure, the dismissal against the plaintiff shall be deemed to be dismissed, and the dismissal as a ground for cancellation of employment shall not be deemed to exist, on the ground that the defendant stated the ground for cancellation of employment in addition

Unlike the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff, it is deemed that there is a dismissal disposition as well as a cancellation of employment, and the dismissal as a cancellation of employment is null and void, but the defendant's dismissal is justified and maintaining the defendant's dismissal is an illegal act that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is reasonable to point this out.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.