1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2015, the Changwon-si entered the disciplinary action in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) on the ground that the Defendants, a J member, were dismissed, and the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair disciplinary remedy with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission regarding each of the above disciplinary actions at Changwon-si, and then the Plaintiff determined to pay the Defendants the remedy fund for victims in accordance with the “Regulations on the Operation of the Dispute Fund and the Compensation Fund for Victims (hereinafter “Operation Rules”)”, and paid the Defendants the total sum of money stated in the separate sheet.

B. On May 12, 2015, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to revoke the instant disciplinary action against the Defendants at Changwon-si.

Accordingly, on July 7, 2015, the Changwon-si held a disciplinary committee and revoked the instant disciplinary action, and upon mitigation of the disciplinary action against the Defendants, the Defendant D was subject to suspension for three months, and the Defendant B, C, E, F, G, H, and I applied the relevant disciplinary action as of January 9, 2015, each of which was the date of the instant disciplinary action, when taking one month of salary reduction for each salary reduction.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2 through 5, 8 through 11, Eul 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The instant disciplinary action against the Defendants at Changwon-si, Plaintiff 1’s assertion by the parties was revoked by the determination of May 12, 2015 by the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, Defendant D was able to be reinstated to the original position and receive the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of dismissal from the original city, and the remaining Defendants except Defendant D were able to receive the amount equivalent to the amount of the salary reduction from the original city.

This is stipulated in Article 30 of the Operational Rule of this case “Where the injured party receives compensation from the Labor Relations Commission or any other institution due to the order of remedy for unfair labor practices or other reasons.”