1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. B entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff as the representative of C, and entered into a modern automobile D shop (hereinafter “on-site automobile”). The B had the seal work, etc.

B. On December 22, 2010, the Plaintiff posted an official notice on the grounds of the disciplinary action to the employees, including B, on December 22, 2010, stating that the Plaintiff would hold the Disciplinary Committee on January 5, 2011, on the following grounds: “Unauthorized absence and unauthorized absence (violation of Articles 8, 57, and 58 of the Rules of Employment),” “the lead of collective action due to illegal instigates (Violation of Article 58 of the Rules of Employment)” (Violation of Article 58 of the Rules of Employment).

After that, as modern automobiles, the Korean Metal Trade Union, the representative of in-house subcontractor, etc. began negotiations, on December 27, 2010, the Korean Metal Trade Union sent to the Plaintiff a document requesting the suspension of disciplinary action against B, etc. during the negotiation period. On December 28, 2010, the Plaintiff posted a public notice stating that the holding of the disciplinary committee will be postponed upon such request.

(c) however, above;

On March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee for workers, including B, etc., and decided to take disciplinary action against B among them on March 2, 2011. The Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee in the absence of B from 13:30 to 13:35 on the same day, and decided to take disciplinary action for the period of three months of salary reduction on the ground of “unauthorized absence from office, illegal strike, unauthorized expulsion from office, and illegal collective action.”

(hereinafter “First Disciplinary Committee”). On March 3, 201, the Plaintiff announced the result of the Disciplinary Committee for Workers including the result of the First Disciplinary Committee for Workers B on March 3, 2011 (hereinafter “First Disciplinary Committee”) (hereinafter “First Disciplinary Action”). D.

On March 14, 2011, the Plaintiff made a disciplinary decision by holding a disciplinary committee for workers, including B, and among them, the disciplinary committee shall be held in the state that B does not attend between 11:30 and 11:40 on the same day.