1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff employs 200 full-time workers and operates urban bus transportation business, etc., and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff on March 14, 2010 and served as an urban bus driver.

B. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff’s Disciplinary Committee resolved 15 days of suspension from office against the Intervenor pursuant to Article 89 subparag. 6 of the Rules of Employment regarding the act of misconduct that “the Intervenor was absent from office without permission from August 11, 2014 to the 14th of the same month.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to a 15-day suspension from office against the Intervenor on August 28, 2014.

C. On September 2, 2014, the Intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014. The Review Committee decided on September 11, 2014 that the Intervenor’s 15 days of suspension from office was mitigated to 10 days of suspension from office. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure against the Intervenor on September 12, 2014, 10 days of suspension from office (from September 14, 2014 to September 23, 2014).

(hereinafter “instant suspension disposition”) D.

On October 1, 2014, the Intervenor asserted that the instant suspension disposition constitutes unfair suspension from office and filed an application for remedy with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. On November 25, 2014, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action of suspension from office exists and such disciplinary action is appropriate.”

On December 29, 2014, the Intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on December 29, 2014. On April 8, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that “the Intervenor did not have any grounds for disciplinary action such as absence from office due to his/her annual leave, and even if he/she was absent from office, the instant disposition of suspension from office was unlawful.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). (In fact that there is no dispute with the grounds for recognition, entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22, respectively.