2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

It is true that this is the reason for dismissal of article 61(3) of the collective agreement.

Therefore, the time to vindicate the attendance at the next date of the disciplinary action is shown.

8 In conclusion, the Intervenor Company held the Disciplinary Committee on July 17, 2015 without the Plaintiff’s appearance. From May 13, 2015, the Intervenor Company held the Disciplinary Committee.

5. The Plaintiff’s absence without permission until 29. As a result of voting on the kind of disciplinary action by the grounds for disciplinary action, the Plaintiff decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on three tables of dismissal, one sheet of dismissal from position, and one sheet of objection.

9) On July 18, 2015, the Intervenor sent “Notice of Dismissal and Notice of Dismissal” to the Plaintiff as follows. (The Intervenor’s Notice of Dismissal and Notice of Dismissal to be inserted) In full view of the following grounds and the following reasons, the Disciplinary Committee held on July 17, 2015 and the notice of dismissal as part of July 22, 2015 pursuant to Article 61 of the collective agreement, the Intervenor’s Notice of Dismissal and Notice of Dismissal cannot be deemed as effective as the notice of dismissal under Article 27(3) of the Labor Standards Act * It is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s duty to work without permission even if it is the pre-announcement period 6 days of absence from work without permission, but it is difficult to deem that there was the Plaintiff’s absence from work without permission from the relevant Regional Labor Relations Commission from May 13, 2015 to May 19, 2015 without permission.