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 Plaintiff is a corporation that employs approximately 560 full-time workers and operates the automobile parts manufacturing business.

The intervenor entered the plaintiff on November 22, 2002, and served as a resident of the Chinese C& corporation on October 21, 2014 and performed production and quality control.

B. On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff opened a personnel committee and resolved to punish the Intervenor on the ground of the Intervenor’s assault against D chief and E members (hereinafter “instant assault”). On December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of disciplinary dismissal.

(hereinafter the above disciplinary dismissal is referred to as the “instant disciplinary action”).

An intervenor filed a request for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission that the instant disciplinary action constitutes unfair dismissal.

On May 12, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “The grounds of the instant disciplinary action is recognized, but it is difficult to deem that the relevant disciplinary action has reached the degree that it is not able to continue the employment relationship by social norms,” and that the instant disciplinary action is unreasonable.”

(K) Gyeonggi-do 2017, 363, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case").

On June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination on June 9, 2017, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the instant initial inquiry court on August 17, 2017.

(Central 2017 Sub-Appellant 581, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on review”). / [The grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties had been contacted by the trading company prior to the instant assault, on the grounds of the defective quality of the supplied product. However, the Intervenor in charge of the quality control of the product did not respond to this. Accordingly, there was a dispute between the Intervenor and D, and the said defective product was caused on the day of the instant assault.