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.

Plaintiff

The grounds for disciplinary action on August 6, 2012, on the date of dismissal of the head of F branch of the status within the labor union E plant subdivision of the Egypt Labor Union Egypt Labor Union, which belongs to the inspection table for the management team of D Plantwon in the workplace on June 1, 1992, by making 50 full-time workers employed by the company and operating D Plantwon located in Seopo-si C, Seopo-si.

1. The conduct of education and refusal of work (the "Disciplinary Reason No. 1" and the following reasons also refer to the same method) - the conduct of self-education of the company subject to reinstatement on August 24, 2010

2. Worked absence - Unauthorized absence: On August 25, 2010, August 26, 2010; on August 27, 2010; on August 30, 2010; on August 30, 2010; on August 31, 2010; and on October 1, 2010 (6 days) - Temporary retirement: Unauthorized leave: October 4, 2010 (1)

3. Denial of instructions from a commercial (the head of the management team) and assault and bombs - On October 5, 2010, the notice of the company is teared, and the head of the management team is contrary to the pointed out of the head of the management team during waiting service on January 4, 2011, and is verbally abused;

4. Unlawful strike after returning to work on August 24, 2010;

5. From November 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, the first inquiry court of absence from office without permission; on January 31, 2013, the date of the determination of the first inquiry court of absence from office; and on May 14, 2013, the date of the determination of dismissal of the application for remedy on May 14, 2013;

1. The grounds for the disciplinary action are all recognized. 2. The disciplinary action is excessive (the grounds for the disciplinary action are: (1) the intervenor returned to work on September 3, 2010 that led to the excessive interference of the head of the management team; (2) the grounds for the disciplinary action, such as the verbal abuse of the management team, etc., are in existence; (3) the grounds for the disciplinary action are not included in the grounds for the disciplinary action at the time of dismissal as of January 31, 201; and (4) the plaintiff company and the intervenor did not have the awareness of his/her returning to the intervenor, etc. as illegal at the time of the grounds for the disciplinary action as of the fifth ground for the disciplinary action; and (5) there is no basis for recognizing the grounds for the disciplinary action, including the statement in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1. This.