A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs approximately 350 full-time workers engaged in passenger transport service, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who was employed by the Plaintiff and served as a driver on February 23, 2009.

B. On September 6, 2017, around 11:25, the Intervenor started the shuttle bus at the bus terminal boarding, and the Intervenor made verbal abuse, assault, etc. against the passengers (hereinafter “victim passengers”) who see the bus he/she needs to board.

C. On October 11, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of the request for appearance of a disciplinary committee on the grounds of “violation of the Service Rules (findation, prosecution of the image of the company, failure to perform duties),” and on October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee and decided to take disciplinary action against the recommended resignation.

However, on November 6, 2017, the intervenor did not submit a written resignation within three days after receiving the disciplinary action, and the plaintiff notified the intervenor that he was subject to disciplinary action against the intervenor.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) D.

On December 13, 2017, an intervenor appealed and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission. On February 1, 2018, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Intervenor’s application for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “the grounds and procedures of disciplinary action are legitimate, but are unreasonable due to a disciplinary decision,” and dismissed the application for remedy against unfair labor practices.

(Wowon 2017 only 234/Bono21). (e)

On March 6, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on May 17, 2018 on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court.

(Central 2018da226, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s entries and images of evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 10, 12, 13, Eul’s evidence No. 27, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s business contents and the Plaintiff’s assertion.