Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 96다2378

Confirmation of Invalidity of Dismissal (해고무효확인)해고무효확인

Decided1996. 04. 23. Court대법원Worker won
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

A supervisory employee at a company played golf during working hours and was subsequently dismissed. After the dismissal, he verbally abused other employees. The Supreme Court held that although misconduct occurring after a disciplinary action can be considered as supporting evidence for the severity of the disciplinary measure, in this case the dismissal was still excessive.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA supervisory employee was dismissed for playing golf during work hours, and afterward verbally abused fellow employees.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that even considering the post-dismissal verbal abuse, the dismissal was an excessive exercise of disciplinary authority, and the worker won the case.
  • LessonAdditional misconduct occurring after a dismissal does not automatically justify that dismissal unless it is serious enough to make continuing the employment relationship impossible.
Issues
  • Whether dismissal for playing golf during working hours was justified
  • Whether misconduct occurring after a disciplinary action can be used as evidence in assessing the appropriateness of that disciplinary measure
Key reasoning

Under Korean labor law, misconduct that occurs even after a disciplinary decision has already been made can, in principle, be used as supporting evidence when evaluating whether the disciplinary action was appropriate—but only if that later misconduct is serious enough that, under generally accepted social standards, it would make it impossible to continue the employment relationship. In this case, the Court found that the verbal abuse committed by the employee after his dismissal did not rise to that level of severity. Since neither the original act (playing golf during work hours) nor the subsequent verbal abuse was serious enough to justify termination, the dismissal was found to be an excessive exercise of the employer's disciplinary authority (징계권 남용), making it invalid.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

Even misconduct that occurred after a disciplinary action may, if such misconduct constitutes conduct of such a nature that it would be socially unacceptable to continue the employment relationship, be taken into account as material for determining the appropriate level of disciplinary sanction.

Full text (English, AI translation) 4,494 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee]

[Defendant, Appellant] Samcheok Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (Attorneys Lee Jae-hoo and 1 other, as Counsel)

[Lower Court Judgment]

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na33332, decided November 21, 1995

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Defendant.

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the First Ground of Appeal
The court below determined that, although the Plaintiff, as a supervisory authority, played golf three times with subordinate employees during working hours on Saturdays, and caused this to be published in a press labor union bulletin, which constitutes grounds for disciplinary action as a violation of company regulations or company orders, gross negligence of duty, defamation of the Defendant company due to serious negligence, and insubordination against a work order without justifiable reason, the selection of dismissal—the most severe type of disciplinary action—was excessively harsh and constituted a significant abuse of the disciplinary authority. Upon examination of the record, it is clear that the court below rendered this judgment taking into account the Plaintiff's position and on the premise that there had been an instruction from the employer prohibiting golf, and it cannot be said, as argued in the grounds of appeal, that the court below excluded consideration of the Plaintiff's position and the existence of the golf prohibition instruction. Therefore, the argument that the lower court's judgment is erroneous in misunderstanding the legal doctrine on abuse of disciplinary authority, premised on the exclusion of these factors, cannot be accepted.

On the Second Ground of Appeal
The court below rejected the Defendant's argument that, after being disciplinarily dismissed, the Plaintiff wandered around the company premises, habitually uttering abusive language to employees and disrupting the atmosphere of the workplace, showing no sign of remorse, on the ground that even if such circumstances were recognized, the legality and justifiability of the disciplinary action must be judged based solely on the grounds for the disciplinary action itself, and that while the Defendant might impose a separate disciplinary measure on the basis of such conduct, it should not use such grounds to determine the justifiability of the dismissal in this case.

Even misconduct occurring after a disciplinary action, if it constitutes misconduct of such a degree that, under generally accepted social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued, may be considered as material for determining the appropriateness of the disciplinary measure (see this Court's Decisions 91Da6740, decided November 22, 1991, and 94Da52294, decided September 5, 1995). Therefore, if the portion of the lower court's judgment pointed out in the grounds of appeal is to the effect that the Plaintiff's misconduct after the disciplinary action cannot even be considered as material for determining the appropriateness of the disciplinary measure, this would be erroneous. However, upon comprehensive consideration of the statements in Evidence Eul No. 9 and Evidence Eul Nos. 15 through 19, which the court below did not reject, together with the testimony of Witness ○○○, it appears that the Plaintiff, believing that his dismissal was caused by pressure from union members, used abusive language toward union members and showed no sign of remorse for his misconduct. However, this appears to be an expression of protest against union members whom he believed to have caused the unexpectedly excessive disciplinary outcome resulting from his own misconduct as described above, and in the absence of any other material showing that this constitutes misconduct of such a degree that the labor relationship cannot be continued, even taking such circumstances into account, it is difficult to regard the dismissal in this case as justified. Therefore, this error does not affect the conclusion. The argument that the lower court's judgment is erroneous in misunderstanding the legal doctrine concerning grounds for disciplinary action also cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Defendant, the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision.

Justice Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice), Kim Seok-soo (Justice in Charge), Jeong Gwi-ho, Lee Im-soo

【판결요지】

징계처분 이후의 비위행위라 하더라도 그것이 사회통념상 근로계약관계를 계속시킬 수 없을 정도의 비위행위에 해당하는 경우에는, 그러한 비위행위도 징계양정의 판단자료로 삼을 수 있다.

【참조조문】

근로기준법 제27조 제1항

【참조판례】

대법원 1994. 9. 30. 선고 94다4042 판결(공1994하, 2829), 대법원 1994. 10. 25. 선고 94다26448 판결(공1994하, 3099), 대법원 1995. 9. 5. 선고 94다52294 판결(공1995하, 3348)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,610자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고,피상고인】

【피고,상고인】 삼척문화방송 주식회사 (소송대리인 변호사 이재후 외 1인)

【원심판결】 서울고법 1995. 11. 21. 선고 94나33332 판결

【주문】

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.

【이유】 상고이유를 본다.

상고이유 제1점에 대하여

원심은 원고가 감독권자로서 토요일 근무시간 중에 부하직원과 함께 골프를 3회 하였고, 이것이 언론노보에 게재되게 한 것은 사규 또는 회사의 명령 위반, 현저한 직무태만, 중대한 과실로 인한 피고 회사의 명예훼손, 정당한 이유 없는 근무명령 불복행위로서 징계사유에 해당하나, 징계의 종류 중 가장 중한 해고를 선택한 것은 지나치게 가혹하여 현저히 징계권을 남용한 것이라고 판단하였는바, 기록에 의하여 살펴보면 이는 원고의 직책을 고려하고 또 사용자로부터 골프금지의 지시가 있었음을 전제로 하여 판시하고 있는 것임이 명백하고 소론과 같이 원심이 원고의 직책과 골프금지 지시가 있었다는 요소를 배제하였다고 볼 수는 없으므로, 이러한 요소들을 배제하였음을 전제로 원심판결에 징계권 남용의 법리를 오해한 위법 등이 있다는 논지는 받아들일 수 없다.

상고이유 제2점에 대하여

원심은 원고가 징계해고된 이후 사내를 돌아다니면서 직원들에게 폭언을 일삼고 사내분위기를 해치고 있는 등 반성의 빛이 없다는 피고의 주장에 대하여 그러한 사정이 인정된다고 하더라도 징계의 적법, 정당 여부는 그 징계사유 자체만을 놓고 판단하여야 하므로 피고가 이를 이유로 별도의 징계처분을 함은 모르되 그 사유를 들어 이 건 해고의 정당성 여부를 판단할 것이 아니라고 하여 배척하였다.

징계처분 이후의 비위행위라 하더라도 그것이 사회통념상 근로계약관계를 계속시킬 수 없을 정도의 비위행위에 해당하는 경우에는 그러한 비위행위도 징계양정의 판단자료로 삼을 수 있다고 할 것이므로( 당원 1991. 11. 22. 선고 91다6740, 1995. 9. 5. 선고 94다52294 판결 참조), 소론 지적의 원심의 판시 부분이 징계처분 이후의 원고의 비위행위가 징계양정의 판단자료로도 삼을 수 없다는 취지의 판시라면 이는 잘못이라고 할 것이다. 그런데 원심이 배척하지 아니한 을 제9호증, 을 제15 내지 19호증의 각 기재 및 증인 ○○○의 증언을 종합하면 원고가 이 건 해고 이후 자신의 해고가 노조원들의 압력으로 인한 것으로 알고 노조원들에게 폭언을 하는 등 자신의 비위행위에 대해 반성하는 빛을 보이지 아니한 점이 엿보이기는 하나 이는 위에서 본 바와 같은 자신의 비위행위에 대하여 예상치 못한 지나친 징계결과가 나온 데 대하여 원인을 제공하였다고 생각한 노조원에 대한 항의의 표시로 보여지고 달리 그것이 노사관계를 지속시킬 수 없을 정도의 비위행위라고 볼 수 있는 자료가 없는 이상 그러한 사정을 더하더라도 이 건 해고가 정당한 것이라고는 보기 어렵다 할 것이므로 이러한 잘못은 결론에 영향이 없다고 할 것이다. 원심판결에 징계사유에 대한 법리를 오해한 위법이 있다는 논지도 받아들일 수 없다.

그러므로 상고를 기각하고 상고비용은 패소자인 피고의 부담으로 하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이돈희(재판장) 김석수(주심) 정귀호 이임수

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
91다25109 · 대법원 1992-02-11
Action to Confirm Invalidity of Dismissal
#2
93다49192 · 대법원 1994-01-11
Confirmation of Invalidity of Dismissal
#3
90다18999 · 대법원 1991-12-13
Confirmation of Invalidity of Dismissal, etc.
#4
2009나33473 · 서울고등법원 2009-10-23
Action to Confirm Invalidity of Dismissal, etc.
#5
85다375 · 대법원 1986-07-08
Invalidity of Dismissal, etc.

Cases citing this decision

2008다21983 · 대법원 2009-09-10
Action to Confirm Invalidity of Dismissal, etc.
2002다51555 · 대법원 2004-06-25
Claim for Invalidation of Disciplinary Dismissal, etc.
2001두10455 · 대법원 2002-05-28
Revocation of Reexamination Decision on Unfair Dismissal Rem
98다2365 · 대법원 1998-05-22
Confirmation of Invalidity of Dismissal (해고무효확인)
97누9161 · 대법원 1997-12-09
Revocation of Reexamination Decision on Unfair Dismissal Rel

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)