1. On October 27, 2017, the Central Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) unfair personnel management between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and between them.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on March 27, 2013 and engaged in the repair business, etc. of home appliances produced by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with approximately 60 full-time workers.

B. On April 1, 2013, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) was serving as the repair engineer for the household appliances in office at the port of Southern Port on April 11, 2017 while serving as the repair engineer for the household appliances in office, and served as the repair engineer for the household appliances in office from April 14, 2017 as the repair engineer for the household appliances in office.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant personnel order”) C.

The Plaintiff opened a personnel committee on May 25, 2017, and “the Intervenor” on May 2, 2017 and the same month.

4. Unauthorized absences was made twice.

On the ground that “the instant disciplinary action was 24 days of suspension from office,” and on May 26, 2017, the following day, notified the intervenors of 24 days suspension from office (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On June 5, 2017, the Intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Plaintiff on June 5, 2017, but the Plaintiff’s personnel committee decided to maintain the instant disciplinary action on June 7, 2017, and notified the intervenors on the same day. D. On June 9, 2017, the Intervenor asserted that the instant personnel order and the instant disciplinary action constituted unfair personnel management and unfair disciplinary action, and filed an application for remedy with the Plaintiff on August 3, 2017. Since it is difficult for the Intervenor to view that the instant personnel order, compared to his/her business necessity, was considerably unfavorable in terms of his/her daily life and was sufficiently required under the good faith principle, it constitutes an unfair personnel order.

In addition, the grounds for disciplinary action of this case are acknowledged, but the intervenor requested the plaintiff to use his annual leave on May 2, 2017 and on May 4, 2017, but the plaintiff refused to apply for leave without justifiable grounds and thereby the intervenor was absent from office without permission. Thus, the disciplinary action of this case constitutes an excessive disciplinary action.

“.......”