beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant Company as a party is a company aimed at the automobile transport service, etc., and the Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff B were employed by each Defendant company on January 22, 2008, and August 14, 2010 and were dismissed on August 15, 2014.
B. (1) On March 2013, the plaintiffs were subject to disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiffs, and (2) around 2013, the plaintiffs (1) delivered 3 million won to F, the head of the Seoul bus trade union E branch office of the Seoul Metropolitan Government bus trade union, along with employment solicitation, and served as a bus engineer of the defendant company on January 22, 2008. (2) On February 2010, the plaintiffs (2) offered employment solicitation to G and delivered 4 million won in cash, and delivered the above 4 million won to F, and as a bus engineer of the defendant company on August 13, 2010, the defendant company was regularly employed as a bus engineer of the defendant company on the ground that "D, G, and F were informed of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office as each breach of trust acceptance, and the prosecutor charged with the above non-prosecution disposition on October 29, 2013.
3) On July 7, 2014, Defendant Company notified the Plaintiffs of the request for attendance under the Disciplinary Committee by stating the following irregularities, and on July 10, 2014, Defendant Company held the Disciplinary Committee for the Plaintiffs and took disciplinary measures against the Plaintiffs as of August 15, 2014 (in addition to the following irregularities, Plaintiff B rejected the dispatch order without justifiable grounds, and the Defendant Company should be punished against himself without justifiable grounds, it was reasonable to terminate the employment relationship in view of the consistent act of gathering the personality of the managers, while taking into account the following:
The plaintiffs filed a petition for review, but the defendant company was held on July 22, 2014.