The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, including costs incurred by participation in the lawsuit.

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. The Plaintiff is a local government public corporation established on December 10, 2003 pursuant to Article 72 of the Local Public Enterprises Act and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Korea Facilities Management Corporation for the purpose of the business of managing and operating public sports facilities, public facilities, and complex public buildings in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

On January 1, 2016, the intervenor was employed by the plaintiff and was in charge of facility management and environmental work in the E-gu area. On November 2018, the intervenor worked for the Fgymnasium belonging to the sports team.

B. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City DD demanded the Plaintiff to take a heavy disciplinary measure or heavier action against the Intervenor pursuant to Article 38 of the Enforcement Rule of the Plaintiff’s Personnel Management Regulations for the following reasons (in sequence, “the instant disciplinary cause” is referred to as “the instant disciplinary cause, and collectively referred to as “each of the instant disciplinary causes”) with respect to the Plaintiff, who proceeded from November 5, 2018 to November 23, 2018:

① The Intervenor, without permission of the chief director, served as the chief director of the G Union (hereinafter “instant Union”) and violated Article 11 subparag. 6 of the Employment Regulations of the Plaintiff.

② The Intervenor dismissed 42 times from January 2017 to October 2018, and violated Article 18 of the Employment Rules of the Plaintiff.

③ On July 2018, the Intervenor violated Article 11 subparag. 10 of the Plaintiff’s Employment Regulations by continuously putting a specific candidate’s page among the candidates for the head of the D head of the Gu during the election period of the Kakao District Office, and sharing a message that defames another candidate for a specific political party.

④ On April 26, 2018, among the working hours (18:00 to 23:00), the Plaintiff left the place of work to witness the “I contact” held by the HS meeting, thereby violating Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Employment Regulations of the Plaintiff.

C. On February 13, 2019, the Plaintiff’s Personnel Management (Disciplinary Action) Committee recognized each of the instant grounds for disciplinary action, and decided to dismiss the Intervenor.

The plaintiff is an intervenor on February 15, 2019.