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.

The Inspector of the Review Decision is a company that is established on September 16, 1988 and employs approximately 550 full-time workers in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and engages in software development and maintenance business.

On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Intervenor company and judged the rate of profit and the possibility of loss by identifying the contents of the project in the process of receiving the project from the consulting department, thereby performing a key role in making a decision on whether to receive the project.

work as such.

On August 28, 2014, an intervenor took disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the grounds for disciplinary action, such as attached Form 1 (hereinafter “first dismissal”).

On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Plaintiff’s request for remedy as follows: “All grounds for dismissal of the Plaintiff, other than the reasons for failure to submit documents related to admission, are deemed justifiable, but the dismissal of the Plaintiff is deemed excessive and unfair; and the Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s request for review on April 28, 2015.

The intervenor decided to reinstate the plaintiff as of April 28, 2015 according to the results of the above ruling and reinstated the plaintiff as EM of the intervenor company.

On July 9, 2015, an intervenor held a disciplinary committee to take a disposition again in accordance with the above review decision as to the dismissal on July 1, 2015, and demoted the Plaintiff as a ground for disciplinary action, such as attached Form 2, to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant lecture, etc.”). On November 2, 2015, the Intervenor took a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for six months of salary reduction due to the grounds for the “performance Improvement Program (PIP) itself refusal; PIP) and the refusal at the time of the designated workplace,” such as attached Table 3.

hereinafter referred to as "the salary reduction of this case"

(1) On December 31, 2015, an intervenor (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) on December 31, 2016 to the Plaintiff.