1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision by the reexamination of this case are as follows: (a) except where the "Plaintiff" in the first instance court is referred to as the "indipant" as the "indipant", and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the decision by the first instance court; (b) in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Intervenor caused an accident on six occasions from April 1, 2010 to August 29, 2012, and caused damage to the Plaintiff by running a taxi for personal purposes without using a distance from August 21, 2012. The Intervenor’s act constitutes grounds for disciplinary dismissal stipulated in Article 47 of the instant collective agreement (i.e., grounds for disciplinary action) and (ii) reasons under Article 14 and (9) of the instant collective agreement (ii) of the grounds for disciplinary dismissal stipulated in Article 47 of the instant collective agreement, and submitted to the Plaintiff three times or more in relation to the grounds for disciplinary action under the foregoing paragraph (i). This falls under Article 47(15) of the instant collective agreement (ii) of the instant collective agreement. ③ Since the Intervenor’s application of the full-time management system from August 1, 2012 to August 29, 2012 to the Plaintiff, the Intervenor was deemed to have paid the Plaintiff the total amount of profits generated from transportation to the Plaintiff.

④ The Plaintiff paid value-added tax to workers by mutual agreement between labor and management. Nevertheless, the Intervenor knowingly instigates certain workers and received false words of will as if the Plaintiff did not pay value-added tax.

The Intervenor’s act as such is a collective agreement of this case.