바카라 카지노

① 바카라 카지노 (Attorneys Noh Man-kyeong, Moon Ki-joo and Lee Jong-Hwa) represented a company established with a goal of expanding the market for goods produced by SMEs and agricultural and fishery products.

② Case background: Some employees of the company had become to know internal information on the sale of products manufactured by another company. They had purchased shares in the company and had earned a significant amount of gains. The employer had taken a disciplinary action of “dismissal” against the employees on the ground of violation of the code of ethics and internal corporate policies (the “Disciplinary Action”).

③ Litigation: Arguing that the Disciplinary Action had constituted unfair dismissal, the employees filed for relief. The Seoul District Labor Commission had accepted the employees’ request for relief, but the Central Labor Commission had made a decision that the employees’ request be dismissed. The case was submitted to the Seoul Administration Court.

The 14^{바카라 카지노} Division of the Seoul Administration Court dismissed all the claims made by the plaintiffs (i.e., the employees) on October 15, 2020, determining, “[T]he plaintiffs’ act of acquiring the shares constitutes an act of dealing with shares in a vendor over which the defendant (i.e., the employer) has an influence, and an act of generally and objectively damaging credibility for the conduct of business affairs…In light of the fundamental damage inflicted to the credibility and fairness of the defendant’s conduct of business affairs, there is a sufficient room for the court to see that the plaintiffs’ misconduct reaches the point in which the defendant cannot maintain the employment relationship with them, and therefore, the Disciplinary Action cannot be deemed that it is excessively harsh to significantly lose reasonableness under social norms.”

On the basis of our experience that we have built from a number of dismissal and disciplinary action related lawsuits, we participated in this administration lawsuit and aggressively made argument to have the claims dismissed, representing the employer.

Specifically, we proved: (i) the internal policies, which had served as basis of the Disciplinary Action issued against the plaintiffs, had met the requirement of collective consent in relation to modification of the internal policies, and even if there had been the lack of consent, modified policies could be regarded as being reasonable under social norms; and (ii) the plaintiffs’ act of purchasing the shares had conflicted with the internal policies, had constituted neglect of duty and had significantly inflicted damage to the employer’s reputation. In addition, in relation to the level of the Disciplinary Action, we substantiated the seriousness of the plaintiffs’ misconduct, the degree of damage inflicted by the plaintiffs’ misconduct to the employer’s reputation, the size of the plaintiffs’ misconduct, the plaintiffs’ failure to make a self-report in relation to their misconduct, the circumstances surrounding the plaintiffs’ efforts to hide their misconduct and other similar cases in which employees were subject to the disciplinary action of dismissal.

In the case of dismissal or other disciplinary-related lawsuits such as this case, how persuasively appealing to the court for the justification (or unfairness) of the disciplinary action on the basis of factual background and sound legal principles is the key to success. The competence of attorneys is critical in dealing with the cases.

In this case, conflicting judgements were made by the relevant authorities. However, we were able to obtain a favorable result that the Disciplinary Action was legitimate and reasonable through meticulous argument and substantiation regarding the existence of disciplinary grounds and the appropriateness of the level of the Disciplinary Action.