1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

On August 7, 1995, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) company and served as a technical engineer from the bus board (hereinafter “instant workplace”) to March 13, 2017.

An intervenor is a company that employs approximately 61,00 full-time workers after being established on December 29, 1967, and manufactures and sells automobiles.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff is a member of the Korea Metal Trade Union B branch, and the Plaintiff is a Committee for Jeonju Factory of the Korea Metal Trade Union Sub-Chapter B (hereinafter “MMMM-U Factory Committee”).

On March 13, 2017, an intervenor notified the Plaintiff of dismissal on the ground that “the Plaintiff was granted a leave of absence for a total of two years due to blood transfusions from cerebral cerebral dystrophy, a disease other than his/her duties, and the physical disability was impossible to perform his/her normal duties,” (hereinafter “instant dismissal”). On May 19, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the former Northern Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the said dismissal was unfair and unfair.

On July 17, 2017, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for remedy, deeming that the Intervenor was unable to perform his/her normal work due to his/her physical disability, even though the Intervenor granted a maximum of two years of leave of absence to the Plaintiff, deeming that he/she was unable to perform his/her normal work.

On August 25, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission by Central 2017 U.S. Ordinance No.859, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal on November 7, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 27, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination is a special vehicle in the bus division, which is the previous business of the plaintiff