부당해고구제재심판정취소
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.
The court's explanation of this case in this case is based on the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2.
C. Paragraph 2 of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of Paragraph 2 (7) (3-9) (3-9) was used as follows. Thus, in the instant case, the dismissal of this case cannot be justified on the ground that the grounds for dismissal of this case against the intervenor cannot be deemed as being responsible for the intervenor who is an employee to the extent that the plaintiff cannot continue to have an employment relationship with the intervenor, on the ground that the dismissal of this case is unlawful, in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence as mentioned above, and the purport of evidence No. 1-2-3, No. 2-1, No. 2-3, No. 1, and 2-1, and the following circumstances revealed as a whole.
Therefore, the decision of the retrial of this case is lawful. (A) The dismissal of this case was a ground for disciplinary action that the intervenor did not submit the reinstatement in addition to the revocation of the driver's license due to driving under the influence of alcohol, and that the intervenor's reinstatement is impossible due to the revocation of the driver's license, which eventually results from the cancellation of the intervenor's driver's license due to driving under the influence of alcohol. (B) Article 10 (1) of the collective agreement of 2015 (No. 1-22) provides that "when the driver's license of the present driver is revoked, when the driver's license of the present driver is revoked," the dismissal of this case provides that "when the driver's license of the present driver on board is revoked due to the reason that the driver on board who provided his/her service is no longer able to provide his/her service as a driver on board, so it seems reasonable
However, the intervenor is a driver working on board, but March 28, 2015.