1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The defendant's indefinite suspension of duty against the plaintiff on July 16, 2012 is null and void.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the purport of the whole pleadings and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 26, and 27 (including branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply), and there is no counter-proof.

The defendant is a regional community credit cooperative established for the purpose of operating credit business, such as receiving deposits and installment savings from its members and lending funds to its members.

On January 1, 1991, the Plaintiff became an employee of the Defendant and worked as a working-level officer of the Defendant from January 2006, and from October 26, 201, the Plaintiff worked as a branch office C.

B. From July 11, 201 to May 15, 201, the Defendant was subject to cross-inspection on the overall operational status from the Gyeongbuk-do branch of the National Federation of North Korean Federation. The Defendant was paid KRW 260,620 for the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day, for L, KRW 175,190 for L, and KRW 51,130 for the 51,00 hours of the 5th day of the 5th month.

However, according to the Defendant’s remuneration regulations, among them, H is prohibited from being paid a responsible person’s overtime allowance separately, and the Defendant recovered from H on November 30, 201 an amount equivalent to KRW 260,620 of the above allowances, and on March 30, 2012, the Defendant issued a disciplinary disposition for three months of suspension from office on the ground that “H did not comply with the direction to prepare an explanatory note regarding the receipt of overtime allowances, and did not have any degree of outline.”

C. On July 2012, the Defendant’s chief director of the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant’s board of directors to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant’s board of directors resolved on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff “six months of indefinite suspension (from August 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013)” against the Plaintiff on the following grounds in the regular transition society:

Article 15 of the Regulations on the Organization of Saemaul Fund shall apply to the former.