(a) Where a collective agreement or rules of employment, etc. notifies a person to be disciplined of the matters subject to disciplinary action and requires a written explanation, whether the disposition violating such procedures is valid (negative) and where the person to be disciplined is in danger of preventing any unlawful act other than

B. Whether a defect in the original process of disciplinary action is cured if the defect is supplemented in the process of retrial (affirmative)

(c) The case holding that if the worker was notified of the disciplinary action immediately before the opening of the personnel committee, the result of the disciplinary action was notified after the resolution of the personnel committee, and there was sufficient time to submit favorable arguments and explanatory materials until the opening of the personnel committee for reexamination, the notification of the disciplinary action was delayed, and the procedural defect in the process was cured;

A. Where a collective agreement or rules of employment provides that a person to be disciplined shall notify the person to be disciplined of the disciplinary matters and request a written explanation, the purport of the provision is to ensure that the person to be disciplined has an opportunity to prepare and submit explanatory materials beneficial to him/her for the vindication of the facts suspected of disciplinary action, while allowing the person to be disciplined to accurately grasp the facts of misconduct and handle the case fairly, the disposition violating the above procedure is null and void in principle, and even if there is no special provision regarding the time of notification of the disciplinary matters, the person to be disciplined shall be notified with a considerable period of time to prepare a vindication and explanatory materials. Even if the person to be disciplined is in danger of preventing other illegal acts except for the grounds for disciplinary action,

B. The procedure of review on a disciplinary action is a kind of disciplinary procedure, in which the entire procedure is a single disciplinary procedure, and the legitimacy of the procedure should be determined on the whole of the disciplinary procedure. Therefore, even if there is a defect in violation of the procedure in the original process of disciplinary action, the defect in violation of the procedure should be cured.

(c) The case holding that if the worker was notified of the disciplinary action immediately before the opening of the personnel committee, the result of the disciplinary action including the grounds for the disciplinary action was notified after the resolution of the personnel committee, the request for reexamination was made, and the request for reexamination was made, and there was sufficient time to submit favorable arguments and arguments, and the request for reexamination was made, the defect in the procedure that delayed the notification of the disciplinary action to the worker and did not demand a statement of reasons was cured.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da13731 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2231), 91Da1233 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 231), 92Da14786 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2645) B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da1769 delivered on June 9, 1981 (Gong1981, 14056) (Gong1981, 14056). Supreme Court Decision 78Nu123 delivered on November 27, 1979 (Gong1980, 12427), 90Da1584 delivered on February 8, 1991 (Gong191, 1960, 196Da29296296 delivered on June 29, 29962)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Suwon Electronic Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 90Na5512 delivered on August 22, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Since the cooking of evidence and fact-finding belong to the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless they exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, in light of the records, the reasoning of the judgment below is justified, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no ground for appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2-A

Article 4 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action for Defendant Company provides that each department shall notify the competent department of the details of the request for disciplinary action upon receipt of the request for disciplinary action and the competent department shall collect a statement of reasons therefor. The Defendant Company, upon convening a personnel committee committee on disciplinary action on November 3, 1989, tried to send a summons indicating grounds and grounds for the disciplinary action to the Plaintiffs by mail on the same day and deliver a summons to the Plaintiffs immediately before the personnel committee is held. However, upon refusal of receipt by the Plaintiffs, the court below held a personnel committee committee's request for disciplinary action and decided that the Plaintiffs would be subject to disciplinary action while the Plaintiffs were absent from attendance, and that the Defendant Company did not request for disciplinary action at any time and at any time, notified the Plaintiffs of the request for disciplinary action and sent the notification of the result of disciplinary action to the Plaintiffs on November 9, 1989, and that the Plaintiffs did not request disciplinary action at any time and at any time and at any time until the date when the disciplinary committee was held. However, the court below determined that the Plaintiffs did not request disciplinary action in accordance with the above procedures.

The purpose of the collective agreement or rules of employment, etc. that provides for a person to be disciplined to notify the person to be disciplined of the disciplinary matters and request a written explanation is to guarantee the person to be disciplined an opportunity to prepare and submit explanatory materials beneficial to him/her for the vindication of the facts suspected of the disciplinary action, while allowing the person to be disciplined to accurately grasp the facts of the disciplinary action and handle the case fairly. Therefore, a disciplinary action violating the above procedure is null and void in principle, and even if there is no special provision regarding the timing of notification of the disciplinary action, a considerable period of time to prepare vindication and explanatory materials should be notified. Even if a person to be disciplined risks other illegal acts than the grounds for disciplinary action, the procedure to be taken naturally in

However, the procedure of review on a disciplinary action is a kind of disciplinary procedure with the original disciplinary procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1769 delivered on June 9, 1981). The legitimacy of the procedure should be determined on the whole of the disciplinary procedure. Thus, even if there is a defect in violation of the procedure in the original process of a disciplinary action, if it is supplemented in the process of review, the defect in violation of the procedure will be cured.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding that the resolution of disciplinary action which did not go through the procedures set forth in the disciplinary regulations cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the plaintiffs were in a situation where they would engage in illegal acts. However, as determined by the court below, the plaintiffs were notified of the disciplinary matters immediately before the establishment of the personnel committee, notified of the disciplinary grounds and the result of the disciplinary action which contained grounds after the resolution of the personnel committee was made (the plaintiffs stated their arguments and arguments in the written request for review) and requested a review. (The plaintiffs stated their arguments and arguments in the written request for review)

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 2-C.

The court below decided that the plaintiff 1 caused interference with the operation of the company by inducing the plaintiff 2 to dismiss the plaintiff 2 by visiting the chief of the division, the chief of the division, and the regular director to point out the illegality of the plaintiffs' request in the process of demanding correction. The acts of inducing the above non-party 1 to dissipate the above non-party 1, etc. on the sole ground of his argument by using the time for inquiry prepared for preparation of work, and singing out the above non-party 1, etc. on the ground of the justification of his request. The acts of inducing the above non-party 1 to dissipulate the above non-party 1, etc. to go beyond the Seoul head office without justifiable reasons, which caused the non-party 2 to interfere with the business operation of the company's order by forcing the non-party 1 to stop or interfere with the non-party 1's work without justifiable reasons for non-party 2's request for dismissal of the company's work, even if the plaintiff 2 did not have to go beyond the head office's work.

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 2-b.

The court below held that although it is not acknowledged that the general manager of the defendant company's old-unified Factory, the non-party 2, who was the president of the defendant company, promised to put the plaintiffs to an unwritten answer, it cannot be deemed that the defendant company exempted the defendant company from its liability on the grounds that it did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the above non-party 2 made the above non-party 2's promise to put the plaintiffs to an unwritten answer. However, even if the non-party 2 promised to put the above non-party 2 to an unwritten answer, it cannot be deemed that the defendant company exempted the defendant company from its liability on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the above non-party 2 committed the above non-party 2

In light of the records, the court below's recognition and decision that the above non-party 2 did not promise to put the plaintiffs' acts in writing is just, and therefore, unless it is acknowledged that the above non-party 2 made the above promise, it cannot be said that the decision of this case affected the conclusion of the judgment of this case even though the court below has deliberated on the fact that the above non-party 2 had a substantial disciplinary authority as pointed out in the judgment of the court below, and that the dismissal of this case violated the good faith principle.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

5. As to the ground of appeal No. 2-D

The court below held that the above actions of the plaintiffs not only violate the rules of employment of the defendant company and the general rules of service, but also constitute grounds for dismissal under Article 4 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act. Thus, even if the plaintiffs 1 and 2 continued to serve in the defendant company for 12 years and 5 years before the disciplinary action in this case, the plaintiffs' motive for the above actions was infringed by the plaintiffs' above actions, and there was a lot of loss of property and violation of the order and service regulations in the above factories, considering that the defendant company's disciplinary action against the plaintiffs against the defendant company has a significant influence on the operation of the above factories, it cannot be deemed that the disciplinary action has been violated or abused because it has considerably lost reasonableness, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to disciplinary action as to the plaintiffs' right to dismissal as alleged in the ground for appeal against the defendant company's labor relations in light of the contents and result of the above actions by the plaintiffs.

There is also no reason for this issue.

6. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)