1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 500 regular workers and engages in air transport business, etc.

B entered the Plaintiff Company on May 17, 2009 and served as an aircraft additional note.

On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered three-month disciplinary action of suspension from office (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) on the ground that B, by filing a civil petition with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport by filing a civil petition against the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and on June 1, 2013, B issued a personnel order of the head of the Transport Support Team Kimpo branch (hereinafter “instant transfer order”).

B On June 10, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for remedy by asserting that the instant disciplinary action and transfer order are unfair, and the Defendant accepted the application for remedy on July 31, 2013, and made a decision as follows (hereinafter “instant decision”).

1. The Plaintiff’s three-month disciplinary action of suspension from office against B on May 9, 2013 is unfair, and the assignment of other departments after the end of the suspension period is unfair.

2. Within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written ruling, the Plaintiff cancelled the disposition of suspension from office for B and the placement of the other department after the end of the suspension period, and reinstates the original position (the letter of operation operation team) and pays the amount equivalent to the wages that the Plaintiff could have received if the Plaintiff had worked normally during the suspension period.

On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as 2013da739.

On October 22, 2013, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 2.5 million (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 33 of the Labor Standards Act on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to implement the instant judgment.

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is asserted by the plaintiff B, which is no longer a position to operate aircraft, as the plaintiff failed to pass the examination of flight qualification to be conducted under the public law.