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 plaintiff is a person who was employed by the intervenor on April 5, 2017.

On October 23, 2018, the Intervenor Disciplinary Committee decided to recognize the following grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and to take a reprimand.

Accordingly, on October 23, 2018, an intervenor issued a reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant reprimand disposition”).

The plaintiff does not act as a disturbance to the head of the E headquarters working from the commercial DNA, and is given instructions to rest to rest as other employees, such as other employees, and plays a good respect for the promotion of religion, and thereafter, D agency was given a sound before other members look at, insultingly, and insultingly, and sexual impulses. This is an act of seriously damaging the order of deceptive scheme in the workplace.

On October 29, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a written statement to the Intervenor that “The ordinary D agent provided a insult to the Plaintiff, and sound, and the Plaintiff only provided a insulting speech to D agent or made a request for a sound.”

On November 5, 2018, an intervenor decided to maintain the reprimand disposition of this case through the Review Disciplinary Committee.

On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for remedy by asserting that the instant reprimand measure constituted an unfair disciplinary measure. However, on January 23, 2019, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered the first inquiry court dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the grounds for disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff was recognized, and that the instant reprimand measure cannot be deemed to exceed the Intervenor’s discretion.

On February 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 27, 2019, but the National Labor Relations Commission determined on May 7, 2019 that the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination was dismissed on the same ground as the first inquiry tribunal was dismissed.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant review ruling”). An intervenor shall include the following: