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 intervenor is a company that employs approximately 330 full-time workers and engages in consulting and building computer systems integration and management services.

On November 13, 2017, the Plaintiff is a person who became a member of the operating division of the Intervenor and has been engaged in the business of selling IT cloud products.

B. Around May 2018, the Intervenor’s customer company D (hereinafter “D”) sought advice from the Plaintiff on the purchase, etc. of the Gogle Gue Suece Products, one of the IT cloud products (hereinafter “Guogle Cloud Products”).

As a result, the Intervenor did not sell the cloud products, the Plaintiff continued to purchase D's cloud products through E (E) as the Intervenor's partner company (hereinafter "E").

C. On June 20, 2018, the Intervenor took a four-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff as a ground for disciplinary action, i.e., “an intervenor’s image of the Company (the Intervenor) by raising a claim and a question about the part regarding which E, a collaborative company, sought personal fees.”

The plaintiff filed a request for review of the above disciplinary action with respect to the intervenor.

Accordingly, on June 26, 2018, the intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the attendance at the personnel committee for review held as of June 28, 2018. In fact, on June 28, 2018, the intervenor held the personnel committee for review while the Plaintiff was present at the meeting. On July 3, 2018, the intervenor decided to maintain the four-month disciplinary measure of suspension from office in accordance with the resolution of the personnel committee for review and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

(hereinafter referred to as "instant disciplinary action")

E. The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission because the instant disciplinary action constitutes an unfair disciplinary action.

On September 3, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the grounds that “the instant disciplinary cause is recognized as justifiable grounds, and a disciplinary decision is also appropriate.”

(F) The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and re-examines to the National Labor Relations Commission.