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 Company was established on December 24, 1979 and ordinarily employs 116 workers, and is engaged in passenger transport and transportation business. The Intervenor is a person who joined the Plaintiff Company on December 4, 200 and works as a bus driver.

B. On January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) held a disciplinary committee against the Intervenor; and (b) decided that the grounds for disciplinary action that “the Intervenor worn a saf or hat during operation, in violation of the instructions given on January 9, 2018 and on January 12, 2018; and (c) constituted Article 16 of the collective agreement; and (d) Articles 43 and 42(12) of the Rules of Employment, the Intervenor shall be subject to the suspension of service on board 20 days;

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). C.

On April 12, 2018, the Intervenor asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission. On June 5, 2018, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the instant disciplinary action exists and it is appropriate to take disciplinary action.”

On June 28, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on June 28, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to revoke the said decision of the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that “the instant disciplinary action is recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, but is unreasonable depending on the amount of the determination.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 15 through 17 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the intervenor intentionally and repeatedly committed the act of misconduct by disregarding the direction of the plaintiff, the intervenor neglected the safe operation of the city and the fact that the intervenor had been punished four times prior to the instant disciplinary action, etc., the summary of the plaintiff's assertion in this case.