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 is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (the remainder of the plaintiff's assertion is not significantly different from that of the already asserted in the court of first instance. However, even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance showed each description of Gap evidence No. 17 and 18, the fact-finding and determination of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate), Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination concerning the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a V-related accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the instant accident is merely the “place of equipment repair” that may affect the safety of workers engaged in production, and thus, the Plaintiff was entitled to suspend the Plaintiff directly at the time of the occurrence of the problem at the production site on behalf of the head of the department that cannot be stationed in the production licensee as a representative of the labor union. As such, there is no ground for the disciplinary action of the interference with the production licensee and the re-operation of the production site. (2) The facts and circumstances acknowledged prior to the determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2.b.1(a) of the first instance judgment) and the above evidence, it is difficult to view that the instant accident was merely the “place of equipment repair,” and that there is an urgent or significant danger of an industrial accident.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to suspend work under Article 26(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Article 87 subparag. 5 of the collective agreement at the time of the instant accident.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff voluntarily suspended the production licensee without reporting the manager, etc., and the head of the production department and the department of the production licensee have explained the degree and method of disposal of the problem after the on-site verification, etc. over several times, and even though the plaintiff instructed the re-dong, the physical strength is also possible.