Disposition of dismissal and abuse of disciplinary power against loan-related employees;

If an employee who worked in Nonghyup without any error for not less than seven years has been forged, and 140,000 won has been loaned for agricultural company funds, but part of the loan has been repaid, it is invalid due to the abuse of disciplinary rights.

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Seoul District Court of the first instance (68Ga1991)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant's disciplinary dismissal on January 30, 1967 against the plaintiff is confirmed to be null and void.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant Agricultural Cooperative Federation was subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff as of January 30, 1967, and the grounds why the defendant was subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff are first, as a means for the plaintiff to recover his claims at the time of the plaintiff's work as the regular business of the YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

However, the plaintiff alleged that the above grounds for disciplinary action were groundless, first, the non-party 4 (Consultation No. 7), the non-party 7's new evidence No. 7 (Report No. 7), Gap's evidence No. 7-7 (No. 7), Gap's evidence No. 7-9, Eul's evidence No. 7-9 (No. 7), Eul's evidence No. 8-6 (No. 9), Eul's evidence No. 10-2 (No. 6-2), Eul's new evidence No. 10-6)'s loan No. 9, and the non-party 6-2 (No. 9-2)'s loan No. 10-7, No. 10-7, No. 10-7, No. 10-7 (No. 10-10-7, No.

Then, the second reasons for disciplinary action are health. If the testimony of Non-party 9 and Non-party 8 of the trial witness at the court below and the whole purport of the oral argument are combined, the loan of economic business funds other than other documents required, the business loan, the resolution of the board of directors, and the recommendation of the Liby Cooperative Loan Committee in the case of loan of agricultural company funds, or the loan was conducted in other places than the above Geumcheon branch without being equipped with the above attached documents under the past practice, and there is no fact that the upper supervisory agency ordered to correct the loan as a violation of the regulations or there was no disciplinary action at the time of audit by the upper supervisory agency, and the plaintiff also can be recognized the fact that the loan of 240,000 won, which was at issue in this case according to the previous loan practices that he had conducted. There is no evidence against this.

Therefore, even though the existing loan relationship with the speaker of the upper supervisory agency on the above provision violation does not justify the above provision violation, the possibility of criticism of the plaintiff's loan enforcement amounting to 240,000 won in this case is less.

In this regard, we will examine whether the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff is invalid or not.

Pursuant to Article 46 of Eul evidence Nos. 3 (Service Rules), which has no dispute in the establishment of the disciplinary action under Article 49, the disciplinary action shall be determined by the personnel regulations. According to Article 46 of Eul evidence No. 1 (Personnel Regulations), the defendant listed the disciplinary action No. 1. 1. disciplinary dismissal from office No. 2. 3. 8. 8. 4. 8. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 4. 5, which is minor accident under paragraph (2) and who is not subject to the disciplinary action under paragraph (1) above, provides a warning for later days to those who are not subject to the disciplinary action under paragraph (1). According to Article 47, the disciplinary action is subject to disciplinary action if there is a violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, articles of incorporation, and a written oath under Article 48, 49.

However, in this case, it would be null and void because it violates the above disciplinary provision to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff who had faithfully worked in the defendantsan Partnership for more than seven years against the above violation of the provision, which is less likely to be subject to criticism.

Therefore, since the disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff on January 30, 1967 against the defendant is null and void, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking a nullification of the nullity of the disciplinary action is justified and accepted. Thus, the original judgment which differs in this conclusion is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs after cancelling the original judgment and applying Articles 96 and 89 of the same Act.

Judges Lee Tae-sung (Presiding Judge)