[Plaintiff, Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other
[Defendant, Appellant] Geukdong Transportation Co., Ltd., Attorney Kim Young-hwan for the Defendant
[Lower Court Judgment] Seoul High Court, Judgment of March 21, 1991, Case No. 90Na43201
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
The Court examines the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant's litigation representative.
1. According to the facts lawfully established by the court below, although the Defendant company's employment rules (취업규칙) provide that, in rendering a disciplinary resolution at the Personnel Committee (인사위원회), an opportunity must be given to the person subject to disciplinary action to appear before the Personnel Committee and offer an explanation, the Defendant company's Personnel Committee sent, by mail on October 24, 1988, a notice to the Plaintiffs, who worked at the Incheon branch, stating that a Personnel Committee meeting for the disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiffs would be held at 10:20 on October 26, 1988, at the Defendant company's head office in Anyang, and requesting their attendance; this notice, however, did not reach the Plaintiffs until around 08:30 on October 26. According to this, the Plaintiffs received the notice of attendance only one hour and fifty minutes before the Personnel Committee meeting was to be held, and it appears that it was practically difficult for them to travel from Incheon to Anyang and attend the Personnel Committee meeting in time. Moreover, even assuming that attendance had been possible, in light of the purpose of the above provision of the employment rules, which is to grant the person subject to disciplinary action an opportunity to appear before the Personnel Committee and offer an explanation, notice of the convening of the Personnel Committee must be given with sufficient time to allow the person subject to disciplinary action to prepare an explanation and supporting materials. Where such notice is given urgently, without allowing such time, it must be regarded as substantially equivalent to not granting an opportunity to offer an explanation at all, and thus unlawful.
The court below's determination, made in the same vein, that the disciplinary dismissal in this case against the Plaintiffs was null and void because it was carried out without granting the opportunity to offer an explanation as prescribed by the disciplinary procedure, is justified, and there is no illegality therein, such as a violation of the rules of evidence resulting in a mistaken finding of facts, as argued in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this argument is without merit.
2. Furthermore, the court below found that, although the Plaintiffs did not request a reexamination from the Defendant regarding the notice of disciplinary dismissal and received the retirement allowance and dismissal allowance following the dismissal, the Plaintiffs, upon receiving the notice of disciplinary dismissal, asserted that the dismissal disposition was null and void, and filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices with the competent Labor Relations Commission, as well as a request for reexamination of its decision and a lawsuit seeking revocation of the reexamination ruling; and that, when the Plaintiffs did not accept the retirement allowance and dismissal allowance, the Defendant company deposited these amounts online into the Plaintiffs' bank accounts. In light of these facts, the court below determined that it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs acquiesced to the Defendant's disciplinary dismissal disposition in this case, or that the Plaintiffs' claim in this case violates the principle of estoppel. Upon examination of the record, the above determination of the court below is justified, and there is no illegality therein, such as a violation of the rules of evidence or insufficient deliberation, as argued in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this argument is also without merit.
In addition, the remaining arguments attack the portion of the court below's judgment stating that the Plaintiffs' conduct does not constitute grounds for dismissal; however, the said portion of the court below's judgment is merely an additional determination that has no effect on the conclusion of the judgment below, and therefore this argument is also without merit.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision.
Justice Bae Man-woon (Presiding Justice), Lee Hoi-chang, Lee Jae-seong, Kim Seok-su