2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. An intervenor is a corporation that employs approximately one hundred and fifty full-time workers and engages in C preventive and treatment business, etc.

In November 1, 1986, the Plaintiff entered the Intervenor and worked as the head of the operation support division in Busan Branch from January 1, 2013 to April 20, 2015, and thereafter, the head of the operation support division in Daejeon Chungcheongnam Branch served as the head of the operation support division in Daejeon Chungcheongnam Branch.

B. On June 23, 2016, the intervenor, following the resolution of the personnel committee, committed a disciplinary action of salary reduction three months (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) on the ground that (i) sexual harassment against the same-sex nurse D, etc. (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”); (ii) violation of the duty of mutual respect for executives and employees by failing to speak against his/her superior at the opening of the meeting or taking a bath to other employees (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”), on the ground that the Intervenor violated Articles 32 and 24 of the Intervenor’s Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees; and (ii) on June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a personnel transfer order from the Chungcheongnam-nam Branch to the Gangwon Branch on July 4, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant transfer”). C.

On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary action and the transfer thereof were unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Daejeon Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on September 5, 2016, the Daejeon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy by deeming that the instant disciplinary action was lawful, and that the grounds for disciplinary action were recognized (the “one-half early retirement” referred to in the Intervenor Disciplinary Committee at the time of the decision by the Intervenor Disciplinary Committee was determined not to be the grounds for disciplinary action), and that disciplinary action was appropriate, and that the instant transfer was made within the scope of personnel discretion, depending on the need for business operations.

On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On December 15, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination of the instant disciplinary action, but the instant transfer is highly necessary.