1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

In light of the evidence submitted to the court of first instance as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, the fact finding of the judgment of the court of first instance and its judgment based thereon are justifiable, and the same is also applicable even if the plaintiff neglected each statement of evidence No. 30 through No. 38 submitted to the

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 below to the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes again at the trial. Therefore, this court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The non-existence of the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff's assertion is merely the request that D agency make a sound or not treat as insultingly, and there is no insult or warning in light of the article.

The grounds for disciplinary action, which caused the disciplinary action of this case, are different from actual facts, such as adding to the phrase “the intervenor made an article,” which is not originally specified in the notice of attendance of the disciplinary committee, or adding to the circumstances that “the work inside the packing room was suspended” in the review procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission.

The reasons why the Intervenor’s representative director, such as E and J, and the fact-finding certificate, etc. prepared by the Intervenor’s representative director K cannot be grounds for recognizing the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff due to lack of credibility, and the fact-finding report is merely prepared in a formal manner to unilaterally punish the Plaintiff.

The defective notice of attendance of the disciplinary committee was stated only as “a disturbance of deceptive order due to insult of the company” due to the grounds for disciplinary action, and there was no specific factual basis or the provision of the rules of employment that violated the Plaintiff’s rules of employment. Therefore, the Plaintiff is merely an appearance of the disciplinary committee held formally without accurately knowing the grounds for disciplinary action.

An intervenor.