1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.

The Inspector of the Review Decision is a corporation that operates urban bus transportation business using approximately five hundred full-time workers, and the plaintiff was employed by the intervenor on July 1, 2004 and served as C urban bus driver at the B's office.

The Disciplinary Reason (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Reason of this case”) No. 1

1. Violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act and the Road Traffic Act, such as voluntary deviation from a regular route on October 10, 2013, the passage through a two stop without stopping, the change of the five lane street crossings, and the change of the lane;

2. Disturbing the order of deceptive scheme by failing to comply with eight times the instructions given by the head of the place of business to prepare records of violations.

3. To refuse to communicate with a company in response to civil and administrative relief in response to a request for explanation of the company, and to facilitate smooth resolution through dialogue on the side of the company, and to interfere with the business of the company;

4. On July 1, 2014, an intervenor in charge of corporate honorary credit enhancement at four times (13.10.10.10.11.1.1.4.11.4.11.5) of one person’s demonstration with a false statement of false facts and printed materials, on July 1, 2014, issued a 30-day disciplinary measure of suspension from office (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension from office”) against the Plaintiff on grounds of the following disciplinary reasons.

On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant suspension order is unfair to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Labor Relations Commission”), and filed an application for remedy. However, the Seoul Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on September 22, 2014.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on October 21, 2014 (hereinafter “China Labor Relations Commission”). However, on December 30, 2014, the Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that “the procedures for disciplinary action are lawful, and all other disciplinary grounds except for the grounds prescribed in subparagraph 3 are recognized.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s grounds for disciplinary action as to the lawfulness of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case.