1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of

2. Additional determination

A. Determination of the grounds for disciplinary action [ex officio determination] Whether a worker's misconduct is the grounds for disciplinary action or not should be determined by the disciplinary committee, etc. through specific materials, and the grounds for disciplinary action are not limited solely on the grounds for disciplinary action or the rules of employment or disciplinary regulations stated in the resolution or disciplinary action.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15742 delivered on September 20, 1996). According to the purport of each of the statements (including virtual numbers) and all of the arguments, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s disciplinary committee was the cause of disciplinary action, such as undermining the public confidence of the company of prisoners of war with false facts, undermining the public confidence of the company of prisoners of war, and spreading inside and outside the country the reason different from the facts, thereby impairing the company’s reputation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the ground for Article 4 (1) 9 of the Discipline Regulation (if the order or instruction was violated or the order was disturbed) also constitutes the ground for disciplinary action in this case is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for disciplinary action, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as

(A) The Intervenor does not specifically dispute the grounds for the above disciplinary action. (B)

(1) In light of the evidence submitted in addition, such as the Plaintiff’s testimony of the trial party D’s argument and the statement of Gap’s evidence No. 39, it is clear that the Intervenor’s act of investigating the job corruption in the Haman on May 2010 was based on the personal purpose of obtaining favorable results in the election of the chairman of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Committee, which was scheduled to be conducted after about seven months.

The court below determined the appropriateness of a disciplinary decision which misleads the facts.