1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In the past disciplinary action against the Intervenor and reinstatement, etc., the Plaintiff was ordinarily engaged in drug wholesale business using more than 250 full time workers. The Intervenor was employed and worked for the Plaintiff on November 27, 1997. The Intervenor was hospitalized in the hospital from April 3, 2013 to June 14, 2013 due to the occurrence of a traffic accident that occurred during his/her business trip on April 3, 2013.

3) On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor delayed the submission of the medical certificate of diagnosis and was absent from office without permission during the period of hospitalization, and on August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the plan to hold the personnel committee by adding the grounds that the Intervenor received the loans for intra-company housing in an unlawful manner. On August 30, 2013, the Intervenor notified the Intervenor of the plan to hold the personnel committee and issued a self-determination order. (iv) On October 30, 2013, the Intervenor asserted that the above standby order was unfair and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On December 23, 2013, the settlement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and the Plaintiff reinstated the Intervenor on December 30, 2013.

5) On February 2, 2014, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on the ground of the disciplinary cause No. 6, including the absence from office without permission. Accordingly, on March 19, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 19, 2014, but the application for remedy was dismissed on May 19, 2014. On June 11, 2014, the Intervenor determined that the application for review was defective with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal was unfair dismissal on the ground that the disciplinary action was excessive on August 22, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff returned the Intervenor on October 24, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff held the Personnel Affairs Committee on November 18, 2014, which was deemed justifiable by the National Labor Relations Commission from among the grounds for the disciplinary action on which the Plaintiff failed to comply with the order to receive the order, the Plaintiff’s intentional absence from office.