2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the parts arising from the participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a public institution affiliated with the Ministry of Labor under the Ministry of Labor, established on March 18, 1982 and established on March 18, 1982 and ordinarily employs more than 1,000 full-time workers to support workers’ lifelong learning, to conduct workplace skill development training, to conduct qualification examinations, to encourage skilled crafts, and to promote employment.

B. On January 1, 2008, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor as Class 5 in general service, and promoted to Grade 3 in general service on January 1, 2019. From July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, the C Department served each of the D departments from January 1, 2019.

(c)

An intervenor on April 1, 2019 against the plaintiff on April 1, 2019

C The head of the team team of the C division was subject to a disciplinary measure of "one month of suspension from office" on the ground that it violates Article 8 of the Act on the Prohibition of Unlawful Solicitation and Payment of Money, Valuables, Etc. (hereinafter "Solicitation Prohibition Act"), Articles 6, 7, 25, and 3 and 8 of the Decree on the Conduct of Participants' Action, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Employment and Labor Regulations, such as providing two weeks (30 years of sirens equivalent to KRW 372,00, hereinafter "the two weeks in this case") and one KON (hereinafter "KON") and the KON, etc. (hereinafter "the instant disciplinary measure").

On May 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy for unfair disciplinary action against the instant disciplinary action with the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission on July 3, 2019 recognized the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff in violation of the Act on Prohibition of Solicitation and the Decree of Conduct by Executives and Employees, and abused discretionary power.

(F) On August 6, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for remedy was rejected (F). E) and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on August 6, 2019, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on October 14, 2019 (B) to the same effect as the dismissal ruling by the said