1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff was established on December 22, 2015 and ordinarily employs 660 full time workers and runs urban bus transportation business. The Plaintiff is a company that operates urban bus transportation business. The Intervenor is a person who served as a bus driver as the Plaintiff.

B. On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of the fact that the Intervenor was excluded from the dispatch on grounds of the proceeding of the disciplinary procedure, and excluded the Intervenor from the dispatch on February 8, 2017.

C. On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of the opening of a personnel committee, and held a personnel committee under the presence of the Intervenor on March 4, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the disciplinary dismissal on April 8, 2017, accompanied by a written notification of the results of deliberation of the personnel committee.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) D.

C. The grounds for the disciplinary action against the intervenor on the notice of the result of deliberation by the personnel committee mentioned in this paragraph are summarized as follows.

Around 20:00 on January 23, 2017, an intervenor who refuses to take care of the vehicle after the adjustment of working hours without the company's approval, expressed his/her intention to re-ordinate the time table by stating that he/she will not meet the time limit because the vehicle has a large number of vehicles and the latter is difficult to meet the time, and that he/she is forced to give five times out of five times of the remaining five-six times of the time limit.

However, according to the results of the analysis of the operational information system (BIS) operational records, in the case of January 23, 2017, there was sufficient conditions to start five times after the end of 4 minutes after the end of operation, and it was confirmed that the intervenor failed to operate the vehicle without neglecting the vehicle by adjusting a false time table for the purpose of not allowing the intervenor to work in favor of himself/herself.

In other words, the facts that the intervenor's back end 2 times operated five times, and F, which is the vehicle ahead of the intervenor, is six times even after the end of the operation.