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. 1) The Intervenor is a corporation that employs about 20 full-time workers and engages in the distribution business, etc. The Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Intervenor on January 20, 2015, and then carries out the delivery business. 2) The Intervenor’s disciplinary committee decided to take a 15-day disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on February 25, 2016 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s leaving the Plaintiff’s workplace and destroying the delivery vehicle due to neglect of management, and the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on March 2, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy for unfair suspension from office with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on April 28, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the damage of the delivery vehicle due to neglect of management is recognized as a ground for disciplinary action but is excessive.

(3) On April 8, 2016, the Intervenor Disciplinary Committee decided to take five days of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not cooperate with his/her legitimate business instruction on February 23, 2016 and February 26, 2016, and made anti-end and verbal abuse to his/her superior,” and the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on the same day. The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy for unfair suspension from office with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the disciplinary cause was recognized on June 30, 2016, the disciplinary action was appropriate and the disciplinary action was lawful (JJ2016.67). On May 23, 2016, the Intervenor Disciplinary Committee decided to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground of the Plaintiff’s violation of the Rules of Employment on the ground of total obstruction of the Plaintiff’s business affairs, etc., and notified the Intervenor on May 23, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on July 19, 2016 on the grounds that some grounds for disciplinary action are recognized and such disciplinary action is reasonable, but that the disciplinary procedure is illegal.

Gyeonggi-do 2016Jaly 775). b

b.the intervenor;