1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. The grounds alleged in the trial by the defendant and the intervenor while appealed from the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged in the court of first instance, and the facts established and determined in the court of first instance and the whole purport of evidence and arguments submitted in the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows, except for the supplement of the first instance judgment, and the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the first instance judgment. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The Intervenor asserts to the effect that the disposition of dismissal and the disposition of disciplinary dismissal based on the grounds of obligatory dismissal and ex officio dismissal exist separately, and that the effective date is the same as April 23, 2015. As such, the Intervenor’s notice of dismissal for the Plaintiffs is merely the procedure taken in relation to the disposition of dismissal, not the procedure taken as part of the disposition of dismissal, and it does not constitute a matter of consideration regarding the procedural legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal and disciplinary dismissal. The Intervenor notifies the Plaintiffs of attendance prior to the establishment of the personnel committee, and notified the Plaintiffs of dismissal in accordance with the personnel committee’s resolution of dismissal, and thus, there is no procedural defect in the disciplinary dismissal and disciplinary dismissal

When an employer notifies in writing the grounds, etc. for dismissal, he/she shall be able to specifically identify the grounds for dismissal in the workplace of the worker, and in particular, in the case of disciplinary dismissal, the detailed facts or irregularities that constitute the substantial grounds for dismissal shall be stated, and it cannot be deemed sufficient that the collective agreement or employment rules that the person subject to disciplinary action violated

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da42324 Decided October 27, 2011). Pursuant to the allegations in the Intervenor’s assertion, it exists a disposition of dismissal and disciplinary dismissal against the Plaintiffs and the proviso of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act separately.