1. The Defendant’s suspension from office for the Plaintiff on February 26, 2013 and the suspension from office for the Plaintiff on March 12, 2013 and the suspension from office for the Plaintiff on February 26, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2006, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company and served as a broadcaster.

B. On February 26, 2013, the Defendant took a six-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff posted a notice on January 3, 2013 on the bulletin board inside the Defendant’s news media to read the character of the Defendant’s executives and employees, thereby impairing the order of work” (hereinafter “instant primary disciplinary measure”).

C. On March 12, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension from office for one month and two months of education (hereinafter “instant secondary disciplinary action”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was subject to the Plaintiff’s personal assessment of know-how (R) class (hereinafter “R class”) at least three times within the last three years.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2 and 3 evidence (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the primary disciplinary action in this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s non-existence of a disciplinary cause is merely merely a serious criticism against the Defendant’s management, etc. of the general level of opinion-raising, but does not reach the extent of disrupting the work order by gathering the personality of the Defendant management, etc., and thus, cannot be deemed a cause of disciplinary action. 2) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff, who was subject to unfair stress on several occasions, posted the above article as a means of demanding a correction of unfair transfer, or demand for correction; and (b) the Plaintiff had no record of being subject to disciplinary action while serving as a broadcaster for not less than six years, and works in good faith, the instant primary disciplinary action was abused by the Defendant’s right to disciplinary discretion.

(b) The company under Article 3 (1) of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant shall work in accordance with the working conditions set out in these Rules, and the employees shall comply with the matters set out in these Rules and the company’s regulations and shall faithfully perform their duties assigned in accordance with the commercial instruction.