1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 450 full-time workers and engages in the construction, management, and operation of C facilities.

On February 9, 2015, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is the representative of the D Labor Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Trade Union”) that was established under the organization of the Plaintiff’s workers, who is employed by the Plaintiff and worked as an engineer.

B. On October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) on October 14, 2017, the Intervenor did not comply with the instructions to work on October 14, 2017, and was absent from work without permission; and (b) notified the Intervenor that he did not comply with the instructions to work (hereinafter “instant warning”).

C. On November 6, 2017, the Intervenor asserted to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission the Plaintiff as the respondent that the instant warning disposition is unfair and applied for remedy against unfair warning.

On March 22, 2018, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission deemed the “other disciplinary measures” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act as disadvantageous sanctions against the Intervenor. Since it is recognized that the Intervenor was absent without permission on October 14, 2017, the grounds for the instant warning disposition are recognized, however, the instant warning disposition is excessive compared to the Intervenor’s causes attributable to the Intervenor, and thus, the Intervenor’s request for remedy was accepted.

On May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking cancellation of the said initial inquiry tribunal. On September 6, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the instant warning disposition constitutes “other disciplinary measures” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, because the grounds for the disposition are not recognized, and thus, is unreasonable (hereinafter “instant reexamination judgment”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 14, and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's arguments are as follows.