1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that is established on February 18, 1958 and operates urban bus transportation business by employing 100 full-time workers at the prime city C in the prime city.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff on December 3, 2014 and served as an urban bus driver.

B. On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff: “Inciting the bankruptcy of the Plaintiff Company by spreading a will or false information; ② filed a written application with the competent court for the Plaintiff Company, or filed a petition against the Plaintiff Company for the failure to pay for the failure to pay for the fourth insurance, and used the signature stamp received from the workers for the purpose other than the purpose; ③ the Plaintiff Company’s notice of disciplinary action against the Intervenor for suspension of office for the reason that it was not verified by destroying the official document attached by the Plaintiff Company was circulated on the bulletin board.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant suspension disposition”). C.

On April 7, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 7, 2017, and the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized only the grounds for disciplinary action on May 18, 2017 regarding “an act of spreading the fact that has not been verified due to damage to the public notice,” and accepted the application for remedy on the ground that the amount of remedy is excessive compared to the relevant misconduct.

On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking cancellation of the said initial inquiry tribunal, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on August 29, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the normalization of the company by spreading to the relevant employees and the president of the representative bargaining trade union from October 2015 to February 14, 2017 that the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation procedure had been in progress.