1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties concerned are companies running ordinary transportation business, etc., and the plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the defendant on March 22, 2001 and served as city bus driver.

B. On June 7, 2013, at around 02:00 on June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) was crashed on the floor by the Defendant’s garage located in Ulsan-dongdong-gu, Ulsan-gu, where the Plaintiff was placed on the bridge to replace the front set of the vehicle and the width of the vehicle; and (b) was down

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff was injured by an accident of cerebral humconsis, etc., with no open address in the two parts of the case. The Plaintiff was hospitalized in spinal humconsis by means of ulverization humconization in the second humconium, 11 chest and pressure humconization in the first humconium, etc., and was hospitalized and administered from the date of the accident until June 30, 2015.

In addition, it was continuously subject to pharmacologic until October 2015.

On June 30, 2015, the medical care for applying for leave of absence was terminated on June 30, 2015, and on July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for leave of absence for sick leave to the Defendant.

(Period of temporary retirement from July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015). (e)

(1) On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff, C of the labor union, and D affiliated with the Defendant met with E professor, the Plaintiff’s leader at the Ulsan National University Hospital Hospital on Oct. 14:30, 2015. Considering the unique characteristics of city bus drivers who need to transport an unspecified number of people, the Plaintiff could be reinstated in light of drug treatment, such as anti-competitive drugs, etc. at the time. (2) E professor could not predict when a light training will occur, so it is impossible for the Plaintiff to engage in driving duties, and it is necessary for the Plaintiff to not drive his/her own car, and in foreign cases, the Plaintiff could not force him/her to drive his/her own car.

3) In consultation with the Defendant, the Plaintiff extended the period of leave of absence from October 2015 to January 2016. F. The Defendant’s dismissal and notification 1) on January 14, 2016.