1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on September 3, 1990 and engaged in tobacco sales business, etc. using approximately 670 regular workers.

The intervenor was employed by the plaintiff on October 25, 2004 and worked at the plaintiff's factory in Scheon-si and the head office in Seoul.

B. The Plaintiff from April 1, 2014 to the same year on the ground that the Intervenor was evaluated as a lower business in the year 2013.

6. By the 30th day, the Intervenor implemented a program for improving the ability to work (hereinafter referred to as the “first improvement program”).

On July 22, 2014, after the completion of the first improvement program, the Plaintiff was subject to one week disciplinary action against the Intervenor on the ground of Article 4-1. of the Discipline Regulation on the ground that the Intervenor, without justifiable grounds, was dissatisfied with the higher occupational order or committed a monthly act.

On September 15, 2014, the intervenor filed a request for reexamination, but the plaintiff notified the intervenor that he/she will maintain one week of suspension from office.

(hereinafter the above disciplinary action) C.

While the prior disciplinary procedure was in progress, the Plaintiff again implemented a business ability improvement program (hereinafter “the second improvement program”) for the intervenors from August 14, 2014 to November 13, 2014.

On October 30, 2014, when the second improvement program is in progress, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of a standby order to order the atmosphere from November 1, 2014, on the ground that the Intervenor “in the situation where various pending issues are urgently returned, the Intervenor shows the situation that impedes the overall team workshop due to the compatibility with commercial and team members.”

On December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee for disciplinary action against the Intervenor, and notified the Intervenor that he/she was punished by a disciplinary dismissal on January 9, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disciplinary dismissal”). The disciplinary dismissal, prepared at the time of the instant disciplinary dismissal, does not exceed the notification.