1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgment is added to

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary judgment] The plaintiff asserts that "in the case of the dismissal of the disciplinary action in this case, there is a procedural defect in which the opportunity to explain under Article 58 of the Rules of Employment has not been properly given to the plaintiff, and the grounds for disciplinary action do not exist at all, so it is unlawful.

However, in full view of the circumstances cited by the first instance court as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the procedural defect of the Plaintiff’s issue is cured, and the facts of sexual harassment against the Plaintiff’s female employees as grounds for the disciplinary action can be sufficiently recognized.

However, according to the evidence No. 1, the intervenor stated that the part of compelling the Plaintiff to drive alcohol to C, who is a subordinate employee, was not a ground for disciplinary action, but a ground for disciplinary action. Accordingly, the National Labor Relations Commission recognizes only sexual harassment against the Plaintiff’s female employees due to the ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, and the coercion to drive alcohol to C is considered as a ground for determining the appropriateness of disciplinary action.

Nevertheless, the first instance court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff had forced C to drive alcohol and assaulted C not only, and determined that the act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Rules of Employment of the Intervenor, which constitutes “a case where the Plaintiff has disturbed the company’s climate and order due to bad conduct.”

This decision of the first instance court is not permissible because it added a new reason that is not recognized as identical to the grounds for the disposition of the National Labor Relations Commission.