1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Intervenor is a local agricultural cooperative under Article 13 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”), and the Plaintiff is a person who entered the Intervenor on December 1, 1983 and was in charge of vehicle operation and agricultural product delivery.

On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff worked in the Incheon Apartment, a place for delivering rice, around 11:30 a.m. as of May 24, 2012.

The head of the Intervenor’s partnership was 17:30 on the same day, and the Plaintiff stated that “the Plaintiff was treated by D Hospital because food was drinking on the previous day.”

On May 25, 2012, the president of the Intervenor’s partnership stated to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2012 that “the Plaintiff was “I have no hospitalization or medical record by telephone,” and that “I have received the medical treatment. I have received the treatment. I have called that “I have confirmed the business of the hospital. I have received the treatment. I have received the treatment.”

Therefore, the former secretary of the assistant intervenor and the head of the general affairs team visited the hospital and requested the head of the office of the above hospital to confirm the fact that the plaintiff received medical treatment, but the head of the above office did not make a clear answer to the "whether he would want to hear a son's talk, not an elementary school student".

On May 31, 2012, the president of the Intervenor’s partnership stated to the Plaintiff that “in case of hospitalization and treatment, it would result in the Plaintiff’s certificate of hospitalization and treatment.”

On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff sent out the place of business of the Intervenor and sent out the place of business of the Intervenor to the A.I.D., but did not bring about a certificate of hospitalization and medical treatment, and the Plaintiff said the Intervenor’s union chief “whether there is any fact of medical treatment” to mean “whether or not there is any fact of medical treatment.”

On June 12, 2012, the Intervenor filed a false report with the Plaintiff on May 24, 2012, and upon which, on June 1, 2012, the Intervenor violated the major interest of the Intervenor’s filing of a complaint with the president of the partnership (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s filing of each of the above actions”).