1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company that employs approximately 80 full-time workers and engages in waste collection and transportation business, etc. in accordance with an entrustment contract with C with C.

On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff became a member of the Intervenor and was engaged in collecting recyclables from the single house team.

B. On January 25, 2017, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of dismissal on February 1, 2017 on the ground that the grounds for disciplinary action, such as the Plaintiff’s list of grounds for disciplinary action, fall under Articles 12 and 88 of the rules of employment of the Intervenor, and Article 22 of the collective agreement of the Intervenor.

(A) On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff, including the act of impairing the reputation of the company subject to the grounds for disciplinary action as to the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant dismissal”), prepared a false statement on August 23, 2016, stating that “D did not work as an intervenor’s employee at around 2014” (hereinafter “instant statement”) and submitted it to the E citizen’s measure, thereby impairing the reputation and undermining the credibility of the company, and had the relevant party of the company undergo a police investigation, thereby interfering with the conclusion of “private service contract for the collection and transportation of recyclable goods and for the management of the Living Resources Recovery

(A) On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff refused to prepare a labor contract and the Plaintiff dissatisfied with legitimate instruction was dissatisfied with the company’s business affairs by forcing other employees to refuse to prepare a labor contract during the education hours for the preparation of a labor contract, thereby interfering with the company’s business affairs, and against the legitimate instruction of the company that would not instigate another employee to do so.

(2) The grounds of the instant disciplinary action are as follows. The grounds of the instant disciplinary action are as follows: (a) together with the grounds of the instant disciplinary action 1.

On February 7, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Korean Union for Chemical Textiles Industry Trade (hereinafter “instant trade union”) asserted that “this case’s dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices” to the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission.