All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2010Da99279 decided September 27, 2012 [Confirmation of null and void punishment, etc.][Gong2012Ha,1728] [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] The standard for determining whether a disciplinary measure against workers constitutes abuse of discretionary authority by severely lacking validity in accordance with social norms [2] In a case where journalist Eul et al employed at Gap corporation (which published the weekly news magazine ""Sisa Journal"") actively participated in a strike, and established a competing rival business and published a competing magazine ""SisaIN"" while being subject to indefinite suspension and daegi-balryeong (temporary suspension of duty in order to be placed on a waiting list for reassignment), which was followed by Gap's dismissal of Eul et al; an instance where the judgment below - which determined that the dismissal of Eul et al for violating the competitive business prohibition did not exceed the boundaries of discretionary authority in prescribing punishment nor abused it - was acceptable, although the aforementioned indefinite suspension and daegi-balryeong were deemed null and void [3] Whether the employer is obliged to pay wages during the period of an industrial action (negative in principle), the standard for determination, and the person obliged to provide evidence (=the employer) in a case where the dismissed employee participated in the industrial action after the dismissal; or was dismissed during the action, and the dismissal was found to be null and void [4] In a case where journalist Eul et al employed at Gap corporation (which published the weekly news magazine ""Sisa Journal"") actively participated in a strike, and established a competing rival business and published a competing magazine ""SisaIN"" while being subject to indefinite suspension and daegi-balryeong, which was followed by Gap's dismissal of Eul et al; an instance where the judgment below - which determined that Eul et al may not demand wages for the period since the competitive business prohibition was violated - was erroneous for misapprehending legal principles etc. | |
