1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On November 15, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for the ruling on reexamination [based for recognition], Gap evidence 1, 2, and 9, Eul evidence 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff was established on August 8, 2001 and employs 180 full-time workers and operates a taxi passenger transport business.

On June 1, 2009, while joining the Plaintiff and serving as a taxi engineer, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) served as the head of the Division A of the C Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Trade Union”) from July 1, 2013 to November 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Branch”) as the full-time officer of the trade union, returned to work from December 7, 2014, and was again elected as the head of the said Branch on March 17, 2015.

B. The current status of the Plaintiff’s company-level trade union is as follows.

C A P QR B J TUIS

C. On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of the holding of the Disciplinary Committee on February 19, 2016 on the ground of the grounds that the Intervenor violated the company’s work instruction, etc. (the first notification) and did not appear.

On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the Plaintiff was holding the Disciplinary Committee on March 2, 2016 on the ground that “the cause of the traffic accident (the cause of the traffic accident occurred after August 14, 2012, collision with the vehicle and the passenger getting off on August 20, 2012)” was added to the cause of the disciplinary action, but the Intervenor did not request postponement of the Disciplinary Committee and did not appear.

On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the suspension of work on board from February 26, 2016 until the result of the Disciplinary Committee became effective on the grounds that the Intervenor’s normal work is difficult due to the Intervenor’s claim of mental disability.

On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee on March 2, 2016 and refuses to comply with the company’s business instruction related to the conversion of the form of wages (in case of the conversion into the full-scale management system, interim settlement of retirement pay and re-influence of retirement pay), and ② refusal to perform business instructions such as late return, etc. from November 11, 2015.