부당견책구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts and the part concerning which the plaintiff additionally claims in the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(Other matters alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if all of the evidence submitted in the first instance and the first instance trial were examined, the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). [The part to be revised] The portion to be “ January 21, 2018” in the third 5th 5th 201 of the first instance judgment as “ January 21, 2019.”
The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance No.2
A. 3) Paragraph 3 (3) (No. 4th to 20th of the judgment of the first instance) is as follows. 3) The summary of the argument about abuse of discretion is that the Plaintiff is the victim of speech violence caused by unilateral insult of D, and the Plaintiff has faithfully worked without any disciplinary measure, except for those unduly subject to reprimand disposition taken on August 7, 2018 after entry. However, the Plaintiff was subject to the same reprimand disposition as D, which was taken for three months after the perpetrator was enrolled and entered. This is against the principle of equity and the principle of proportionality.
In addition, on February 3, 2018, the head of the G office of the Intervenor Company exercised physical force to attract the Plaintiff from the packaging room, the head of HH team took physical and emotional abuse on September 19, 2018, such as pushing the Plaintiff, compelling him/her to leave from work, etc., and I’s agent took verbal and emotional abuse against the Plaintiff on June 25, 2018, and thus, the Intervenor Company’s executive officers and employees intentionally isolated and collapsed the Plaintiff, even though it was committed, the Intervenor Company did not leave the duty to protect the Plaintiff under the employment contract or the principle of equality treatment.