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.

The plaintiff is a local public enterprise that runs the business of managing and operating facilities designated by the head of A by using approximately 100 full-time workers.

On October 1, 2008, the intervenor entered the Plaintiff Corporation and performed his duties under the jurisdiction of the management team of public office buildings.

On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff demanded a resolution of heavy disciplinary action against the Intervenor on the ground that “On June 3, 2015, 2015, the Intervenor violated the Plaintiff’s duty of good faith and duty to maintain dignity under the employment regulations by assaulting C and D, etc. on behalf of the superior at the meeting where 21 persons, including the Plaintiff’s chief director, executive officers, and employees, etc., including the Plaintiff’s chief director, etc., were in violation of the Plaintiff’s duty of good faith and duty to maintain dignity, and constitutes a ground for ex officio dismissal stipulated in Article 32 of the personnel regulations of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).”

Plaintiff

On June 10, 2015, the personnel committee decided to dismiss an intervenor with respect to the instant disciplinary cause, and the Plaintiff notified the intervenor of the dismissal on June 12, 2015.

On June 23, 2015, the intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, while the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission decided on August 13, 2015 that dismissal of the plaintiff against the plaintiff was unfair in violation of the disciplinary procedure.

On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff returned to the Intervenor, and requested a second disciplinary resolution to the personnel committee. On August 31, 2015, the personnel committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor again.

On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of dismissal on October 10, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant disciplinary dismissal.” The Intervenor filed an application for the recovery from the instant disciplinary action with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 19, 2015, following the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action. On January 13, 2016, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission is recognized as the grounds for disciplinary action, but it is excessive to determine the amount of disciplinary action.