[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Daenong Co., Ltd., Attorney Park Ju-bong
[Original Judgment]
Daejeon High Court, Judgment of May 18, 1993, Case No. 93Na218
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal are borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The procedure for reexamination of a disciplinary action, together with the original disciplinary procedure, constitutes a single disciplinary procedure as a whole, and the legitimacy of that procedure must be judged in relation to the entire disciplinary process. Therefore, even if there was a procedural defect in the original disciplinary process, if such defect was cured during the reexamination process, the procedural defect is deemed to have been cured (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da36123, delivered September 22, 1992).
Regarding the legality of the disciplinary procedure against the Plaintiff in this case, the court below held that even if there were defects in the composition of the disciplinary committee and a failure to provide an opportunity to state opinions in the original disciplinary procedure of this case, since the reexamination procedure before the reexamination committee in this case was lawfully conducted, the defects in the original disciplinary procedure were cured. Furthermore, with regard to the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal in this case, the court below determined that since the Plaintiff's act of violence in this case and his act of shifting responsibility therefor constituted grounds for disciplinary action under the school's personnel regulations or the Private School Act (사립학교법), the dismissal of the Plaintiff on these grounds was legitimate. Upon examination of the record, such measures by the court below are justified, and there is no error of misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the legality of the disciplinary procedure and the legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal, nor any error of incomplete deliberation or inadequate reasoning, as argued in the grounds of appeal.
Furthermore, the argument that the resolution of the Defendant company's board of directors dated May 25, 1989, which appointed the members of the reexamination committee in this case, was defective, and that therefore the reexamination procedure itself was also defective, is a new factual assertion raised for the first time at the appellate (Supreme Court) stage, and it is clear that no such assertion was made in the court below. Therefore, this cannot constitute a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment below.
All of the arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order, by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Bae Man-un (Presiding Justice), Kim Ju-han, Kim Seok-su (Justice in charge), Jeong Gwi-ho