The validity of the disposition of disciplinary action against an express bus driver on the ground that he was late in drinking or gambling; and

In full view of the characteristics of high-speed bus services, strong measures for traffic safety in the traffic department, diversification of traffic accidents, deepening culture and education for employees of Defendant high-speed bus companies in preparation for the trend of largeization, and the provisions that a person who disturbs in-house morals or commits gambling shall be subject to disciplinary dismissal or recommendation office under Article 15(2)4 of the Criminal Procedure Regulations, the Plaintiffs (high-speed bus driving officers) have faithfully worked until the time of dismissal, and solely on the ground that he has completed operation without any accident on the same day, it is difficult to view that the Defendant company’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs who have been late in gambling is a deviation from discretionary power.

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1484 decided May 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na2375 delivered on May 17, 1983

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiffs 1 were not allowed to take disciplinary action against the defendant 2 for his non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1'

It is harsh that a dismissal disposition, which is the largest of the disciplinary action, was made only on the ground that it was late, and therefore, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiffs of this case was determined by the latter part of an illegal disposition as to the disciplinary right, and thus dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, and eventually, accepted the plaintiffs' claim.

However, as seen above, the judgment of the court below is not only erroneous before and after the judgment of the court below that drinking and gambling of the plaintiffs constitutes grounds for disciplinary action based on the provision on punishment of the defendant company, but also it is also erroneous in the order of the defendant company's deviation from discretionary power. Second, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with Article 15 (2) 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is reasonably difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the disciplinary action of the defendant company against the plaintiffs is a ground for disciplinary action, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the law on abuse of disciplinary power of the defendant company and the judgment of the court of first instance.

It is so consistent and decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)