The case affirming the decision of the court below that if the rules of employment provide the grounds for dismissal and grounds for disciplinary action, while the rules of employment provide the whole grounds for dismissal and part of the grounds for disciplinary action, if the company takes disciplinary action on the grounds that the act of misconduct of workers constitutes those for disciplinary action other than those for disciplinary action, such act shall be deemed null and void without justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

Where Article 13 of the company's rules of employment provides 14 days as grounds for dismissal, 17 days as grounds for disciplinary action, 17 days as grounds for disciplinary action, and 17 days as grounds for disciplinary action under Article 13, 57, 3, 4, and 8, the case affirming the court below's decision that the above disciplinary dismissal disposition is null and void on the ground that if the company's act of misconduct falls under Article 57, 57, 13, and 17 of the rules of employment, it does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action, and the above disciplinary dismissal disposition is conducted without justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 2, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na8731 delivered on August 13, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) based on evidence, that the plaintiff committed nine misconducts as stated in its reasoning between January 11, 1986 and February 17, 1990; (b) the defendant company submitted the statement of the time to the defendant company; (c) on March 12, 1990, the plaintiff's act of the plaintiff's act of the above misconduct falls under Article 57 subparagraph 5 (when absent without justifiable cause), Article 13 (at least three times) and Article 17 (the person who submitted at the end of the time), and Article 13 (the person who intentionally disturbs operational order) of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company; (d) Article 13 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company provides 14 as grounds for dismissal; (e) Article 57 of the Rules of Employment provides 17 as grounds for disciplinary action; and (e) Article 13 of the Rules of Employment (Disciplinary Punishment) provides for disciplinary action against the defendant company's act falling under Article 13 subparagraph 47 of the above disciplinary action.

In light of the records, all of the grounds of Article 57 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company are not grounds for disciplinary dismissal, but grounds for disciplinary dismissal are 17 grounds for disciplinary dismissal as stipulated in Article 13 and Article 57, Article 3, 4, and 8, as stipulated in the above Attached Regulation. Thus, the plaintiff's above misconduct does not constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for disciplinary dismissal or discipline as pointed out in all of the above. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)