1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases; and (b) the grounds for its explanation on this part is as follows: (c) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (d) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[The part of the judgment of the court of first instance was written] The 14th sexual harassment was written in the 3th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the 14th sexual harassment was written in the 3th sexual harassment (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 4-1”). The 3th sexual harassment was written in the judgment of the court of first instance and the 16th sexual harassment was written in the 3th sexual harassment (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 4-2”).

No. 3 of the first instance judgment, “A sexual harassment was committed” was deemed to be “A sexual harassment was committed (Disciplinary Reason No. 4-3).” 2. The same is as the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff’s rules of employment, collective agreement, and disciplinary regulations attached thereto.

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

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) With respect to the legitimacy of dismissal, the Intervenor’s act of repeatedly committing sexual harassment, defamation, insult, and occupational harassment against the Plaintiff’s female employees over a long-term period, and the cause of the disciplinary action is significant, and the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action on the dismissal of the instant case is not excessive in light of the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s workplace that is a majority of female employees.

In addition, the dismissal of this case is just because there is no procedural error in the dismissal of this case.

The review decision of this case, which determined that the dismissal of this case is unfair, is unlawful.

B. As to the scope of the judgment, the National Labor Relations Commission has a disciplinary ground for the dismissal of this case, but the disciplinary procedure and disciplinary procedure are unlawful, the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is limited to “the part concerning the disciplinary procedure and the decision on disciplinary action during the review of this case.”

The court shall be this.