The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was established on September 28, 2002, and was ordinarily employed by approximately 140 full-time workers engaged in the business of manufacturing subdivisions.

On January 14, 2008, the Plaintiff became a member of the Intervenor and was in charge of manufacturing physical powder in the production team. From June 2013, the Plaintiff was in charge of the employee members of the Intervenor’s labor-management council. From April 2014 to April 2014, the Plaintiff was in charge of the production of physical powder powder at the production team.

B. On January 31, 2017, the Intervenor ordered the Plaintiff to reduce the salary of two months (hereinafter “instant salary reduction”) for the following grounds for disciplinary action.

On October 6, 2016, the Plaintiff refused to comply with the order of the production team leader to return to the production site at the meeting room of the Intervenor at around 08:20 on October 6, 2016, and assaulted the production team leader.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instruction of his superior officer (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 1”), and assaulted his superior officer

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 2”) C.

On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that “the salary reduction in this case constitutes an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice.”

On April 19, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the part of disciplinary action against the Intervenor among the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action against the instant disciplinary action cannot be acknowledged, and the amount of disciplinary action against the instant salary reduction is excessive, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant salary reduction was an unfair labor practice,” and dismissed the part of the unfair labor practice.

On May 31, 2017, the intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On August 18, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission recognized the grounds for disciplinary action Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and determined that disciplinary action is appropriate, and dismissed the plaintiff's request for remedy concerning the above part during the initial inquiry court.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, and written evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.