1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost includes the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasons why this Court has stated are as follows.

With the exception of adding the same content as that of the first instance judgment, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

B. The Intervenor asserts to the effect that the instant disposition of suspension from office constitutes abuse of authority that significantly deviates from the employer’s disciplinary discretion, on the ground that the Plaintiff, an employer, is more fundamentally responsible for the Plaintiff’s neglecting and evading collective bargaining, even if there were illegal elements during the process of continuing the instant industrial action for a long time in the trial.

In principle, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a worker, the disciplinary measure is taken at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. Thus, in order to be illegal, the disciplinary measure is limited to cases where the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure has been deemed to abuse the discretion that the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure has considerably lost validity under the social norms. If the disciplinary measure is deemed to be a disposition which has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it shall be deemed that it is objectively unreasonable in light of the characteristics of the job, the content and nature of the misconduct, the purpose of the disciplinary measure, and all the circumstances accompanying the disciplinary measure, depending on the specific cases.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4860 Decided September 24, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10852 Decided April 29, 2005, etc.). Based on these legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the first instance court cited earlier and the circumstances cited by the first instance court cited by the Intervenor are clearly unfair even if the Intervenor’s internal taxes are considered, taking into account the circumstances cited by the first instance court.