Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 3: Entity Eligible for Remedy and Need for Remedy, etc.
3. Exceptional Recognition of Need for Remedy
3.1 Exceptional Recognition of Need for Remedy Upon Restriction of Promotion, etc Due to Removal from Position
| Supreme Court Decision on July 29, 2010, Case 2007du18406 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellant: A
* Defendant, Appellee: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Intervening Defendant: National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) 1. Facts: a. The Plaintiff joined NHIS on May 1, 1989, and served as the general manager (Level 5) at the Nowon branch of the Intervenor Corporation and served as the central member of the Social Insurance Trade Union and the chairperson of the Women's Committee. b. NHIS held a Central Personnel Committee on January 24, 2005 to dismiss the Plaintiff on the same grounds that the Plaintiff violated the obligations of the employees under the Participant's Personnel Regulations and damaged their dignity by writing and posting articles about the Plaintiff's defamation against NHIS's former chairman and alienation on the Internet bulletin board of the labor union. c. Participants' personnel regulations prohibit the period of position release from being included in the minimum number of years required for promotion and the minimum working period required for promotion, limiting promotion and promotion if there is a disposition for position release, and the remuneration regulations stipulate that 20% of the remuneration (if the period of position release exceeds three months) is reduced during the period of position release. d. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff argued for the effect of the dismissal of the Case along with the disposition of the position in this Case . 2. Court Judgment: a. The disposition of a position is a disposition that does not grant only the position while maintaining its status as a worker. If a disciplinary action is taken for the same reason as the reason for the position's release after the position is removed for a certain reason, the previous positional disposition shall lose its effect. The loss of effectiveness of the positional disposition means that the positional disposition will not be retroactively extinguished, leaving it in the same state as there was no positional disposition in the first place, but will be extinguished postmortem. The effect of the positional disposition does not expire retroactively even if the positional disposition is invalid, so if the personnel regulations stipulate legal disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion and promotion due to the effect of the positional disposition, a worker who has been removed from the position shall have the benefit of applying for relief from the effective positional disposition to eliminate such legal disadvantages. b. In a Case where an employee was subjected to a position demotion and later dismissal for posting content insulting the chairman of the National Health Insurance Corporation on the union's internet bulletin board, the employee experienced adverse effects in terms of promotion, advancement, and salary reduction due to the position demotion. Although the validity of the dismissal was in dispute and not yet determined, the employee could not be considered to have lost their status, as they were still suffering from the personnel disadvantages. Even if the position demotion lost its effect due to the dismissal, the employee still had a vested interest in seeking relief against the position demotion. The lower court's judgment, which misunderstood the legal principles regarding the relief benefits in Case s of unfair dismissal, was found to be in error. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2007두18406.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents