Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 2001두8018

Revocation of Reconsidered Decision on Remedy for Unfair Dismissal (부당해고구제재심판정취소)부당해고구제재심판정취소

Decided2003. 07. 08. Court대법원Employer 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.

An employee was dismissed after causing subordinates to prepare false documents in order to fraudulently receive overtime allowances, borrowing colleagues' credit cards to obtain cash advances that were never repaid, and repeatedly making sexually harassing remarks. The Supreme Court (대법원) upheld the dismissal as legitimate, ruling that the validity of a dismissal (해고) must be assessed comprehensively, considering the nature of the business, the employee's position, the circumstances of the misconduct, and its impact on workplace order.

Key takeaways
  • CaseAn employee fraudulently obtained overtime pay using falsified documents, misused colleagues' credit cards for unpaid cash advances, and engaged in sexual harassment, leading to his dismissal.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court held the dismissal valid, weighing the employee's position, the nature and circumstances of his misconduct, and the resulting harm to workplace order.
  • LessonSerious misconduct combining financial fraud and sexual harassment can justify dismissal, as it renders continuation of the employment relationship socially and practically untenable.
Issues
  • Whether the dismissal was legally justified (해고처분의 정당성 여부)
  • The criteria for evaluating grounds for dismissal (해고사유에 대한 판단기준)
  • Whether the reconsidered decision on remedy for unfair dismissal should be revoked (부당해고구제재심판정 취소 여부)
Key reasoning

A dismissal is deemed legitimate when the employee's misconduct is so serious that, under generally accepted social norms, the employment relationship cannot reasonably continue. In determining this, courts must comprehensively examine the purpose and nature of the business, the employee's status, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, and the effect on corporate order and discipline. In this case, the plaintiff's fraudulent receipt of overtime pay through falsified documents, misuse of colleagues' credit cards without repayment, and sexual harassment were found to constitute serious breaches of trust and workplace discipline. Taken together, these acts justified termination as a proportionate and legally valid response by the employer (사용자).

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

A dismissal is recognized as justified only when there exists a reason attributable to the employee that makes it impossible, in light of common social conceptions, to continue the employment relationship, and whether it is impossible to continue the employment relationship with the employee in question in light of common social conceptions must be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer's business, the conditions of the workplace, the employee's position and the content of the duties in charge, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the impact on corporate order, including the risk of disrupting the employer's hierarchical order as a result thereof, and the employee's past work attitude.

Full text (English, AI translation) 2,913 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission (중앙노동위원회위원장)
[Intervenor for Defendant] KT Freetel Co., Ltd. (former trade name: Korea Telecom Freetel Co., Ltd.) (Attorneys-in-fact: Gwak Tae-cheol and 2 others of Bae, Kim & Lee LLC)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu13268, dated August 30, 2001

[Order]

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

[Reasoning]

A dismissal is recognized as justified only when it is carried out on grounds attributable to the employee to such an extent that, in light of common social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued. Whether the employment relationship with the employee in question cannot be continued in light of common social norms must be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances, such as the purpose and nature of the employer's business, the conditions of the workplace, the position of the employee concerned and the content of the duties in charge, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the impact on corporate order, including the risk that it would disturb the hierarchical order of the enterprise, and the employee's past work attitude (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10455, delivered May 28, 2002).

The court below, upon comprehensively considering the evidence it cited, found the following facts: the Intervenor company dismissed the Plaintiff, who had worked as its employee, after a resolution of the disciplinary committee, on the grounds that the Plaintiff had caused subordinate employees to prepare documents containing false statements in order to receive overtime work allowances and holiday work allowances belonging to the employees and used such money for personal purposes; that the Plaintiff, taking advantage of his position, borrowed credit cards in the names of employees, withdrew money through cash advances, and failed to repay the amounts by the due date, thereby causing controversy; that the Plaintiff had habitually shown an unfaithful work attitude; and that the Plaintiff had frequently made sexually harassing or threatening remarks to female employees in the department. Having found these facts, the court below determined, based on the record and the evidence, that the grounds for the Plaintiff's dismissal were justified. The fact-finding and determination of the court below as set forth above are justified, and there is no error therein, such as a violation of the rules of evidence resulting in a misapprehension of facts, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The appeal is without merit.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order, by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice), Seo Seong, Bae Ki-won, Park Jae-yun (Justice in charge)

【판결요지】

해고는 사회통념상 고용관계를 계속할 수 없을 정도로 근로자에게 책임 있는 사유가 있는 경우에 행하여져야 그 정당성이 인정되는 것이고, 사회통념상 당해 근로자와의 고용관계를 계속할 수 없을 정도인지의 여부는 당해 사용자의 사업의 목적과 성격, 사업장의 여건, 당해 근로자의 지위 및 담당직무의 내용, 비위행위의 동기와 경위, 이로 인하여 기업의 위계질서가 문란하게 될 위험성 등 기업질서에 미칠 영향, 과거의 근무태도 등 여러 가지 사정을 종합적으로 검토하여 판단하여야 한다.

【참조조문】

근로기준법 제30조

【참조판례】

대법원 1992. 5. 12. 선고 91다27518 판결(공1992하, 1834), 대법원 1994. 1. 11. 선고 93다49192 판결(공1994상, 697), 대법원 1995. 4. 25. 선고 94누13053 판결(공1995상, 1987), 대법원 1998. 11. 10. 선고 97누18189 판결(공1998하, 2875), 대법원 2002. 5. 28. 선고 2001두10455 판결(공2002하, 1559), 대법원 2002. 6. 14. 선고 2000두8349 판결, 대법원 2002. 12. 27. 선고 2002두9063 판결(공2003상, 525), 대법원 2003. 5. 27. 선고 2001두8926 판결

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,005자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】 원고

【피고, 피상고인】 중앙노동위원회위원장

【피고보조참가인】 주식회사 케이티프리텔(구 상호 : 한국통신프리텔 주식회사) (소송대리인 법무법인 태평양 담당변호사 곽태철 외 2인)

【원심판결】 서울고법 2001. 8. 30. 선고 2000누13268 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.

【이 유】해고는 사회통념상 고용관계를 계속할 수 없을 정도로 근로자에게 책임 있는 사유가 있는 경우에 행하여져야 그 정당성이 인정되는 것이고, 사회통념상 당해 근로자와의 고용관계를 계속할 수 없을 정도인지의 여부는 당해 사용자의 사업의 목적과 성격, 사업장의 여건, 당해 근로자의 지위 및 담당직무의 내용, 비위행위의 동기와 경위, 이로 인하여 기업의 위계질서가 문란하게 될 위험성 등 기업질서에 미칠 영향, 과거의 근무태도 등 여러 가지 사정을 종합적으로 검토하여 판단하여야 한다(대법원 2002. 5. 28. 선고 2001두10455 판결 등 참조).

원심은, 그 거시 증거를 종합하여, 참가인 회사가 그 직원으로 근무하던 원고에 대하여 원고가 부하 직원들로 하여금 사실과 다르게 문서를 작성하도록 하여 직원들의 시간외 근무 수당 및 휴일 근무 수당을 받아 이를 사적인 용도로 사용하고, 그 직위를 이용하여 직원들 명의의 신용카드를 빌린 후 현금서비스를 통해 금원을 인출한 후 만기에 갚지 않아 물의를 일으켰으며, 평소 근무태도가 불성실하였을 뿐만 아니라 부서의 여성 직원들에게 성적인 희롱 혹은 위협적인 발언을 자주 하였다는 이유로 징계위원회 의결을 거쳐 원고를 해고한 사실을 인정한 후 기록과 증거에 의하면 위 원고에 대한 해고사유는 정당하다고 판단하였는바, 위와 같은 원심의 사실인정과 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유의 주장과 같은 채증법칙 위반으로 인한 사실오인의 위법이 없다. 상고는 이유 없다.

그러므로 원고의 상고를 기각하기로 하여 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이용우(재판장) 서성 배기원 박재윤(주심)

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
94누15783 · 대법원 1995-12-05
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Remedy for Unfair Dismissa
#2
2006두5304 · 대법원 2007-06-28
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Dismissal Remedy
#3
97누18189 · 대법원 1998-11-10
Revocation of Reexamination Decision on Unfair Dismissal Rem
#4
2005두524 · 대법원 2005-05-27
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Dismissal Remedy
#5
95구35359 · 서울고법 1996-07-23
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Dismissal Remedy

Cases citing this decision

2014다13457 · 대법원 2017-05-17
Action to Confirm Invalidity of Dismissal, etc.
2010다21962 · 대법원 2011-03-24
해고등무효확인
2007두979 · 대법원 2009-05-28
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Dismissal Remedy
2005두10149 · 대법원 2007-10-12
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Dismissal Remedy
2006다48069 · 대법원 2006-11-23
Confirmation of Invalid Dismissal and Wage Claim

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)