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. The Intervenor is a public corporation that employs approximately 28,00 full-time workers and carries out Ctransport business and C vehicle maintenance business.

B. The D Trade Union (hereinafter “DEU”) was established as the organization of participants and workers engaged in the C industry, and the number of members is about 20,000, and five local headquarters (Seoul, Daejeon, Permanent Residence, South, and Busan) under its control.

C. The Plaintiff, as an intervenor’s employee, served as an engineer of the E-Office, was a member of the Central Committee on Countermeasures against Disputes as the head of Honam Local Headquarters under Article 4 of the Act.

On February 28, 2014, the Intervenor rendered a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition against the Plaintiff”) on the ground that the grounds that the grounds that the Plaintiff’s illegal refusal of collective labor provision (hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal”) under the DEU, which took place from December 9, 2013 to December 31, 2013, constitutes Article 6 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 8 (Prohibited Acts), Article 32 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 33 (Prohibition of Deserting Office), Article 37 (Duty of Deserting Office), Article 38 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), and Article 52 (Disciplinary Grounds)1 through 5 of the Intervenor’s Rules on the Personnel Management of the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”).

E. On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant removal was an unfair disciplinary measure and unfair labor practice, and filed an application for remedy with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission), but the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on September 17, 2014.

F. On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission under the Ministry of Labor No. 2014, 1041, 1049/buno164, but the National Labor Relations Commission, on March 5, 2015, rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination (hereinafter “unfair disciplinary part among the above initial review judgment between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor”) to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination.

G. Meanwhile, the Intervenor’s internal rules relating to the instant case are as follows:

▣ 취업규칙 제6조(성실의무)...