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.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment as described in the following paragraph (2) to the assertion

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. (1) On December 19, 2013, the intervenor, as to whether the Plaintiff’s assertion was defective in the disciplinary procedure, opened a personnel committee on December 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant committee”) and decided to dismiss the instant case.

However, at the time, the Plaintiff was subject to the procedure for the right shoulder part, and was unable to attend the instant committee, and accordingly requested the Intervenor to postpone the meeting, but the Intervenor was demoted.

Therefore, there are procedural defects in the dismissal disposition of this case.

(2) According to the facts stated in Eul-B or evidence 16, in the case of an intervenor, it is only recognized that "if a member intends to take disciplinary action because he/she falls under the grounds for disciplinary action, the company may hear the member's statement at least before the date of the decision on disciplinary action, and there is no other internal evidence to acknowledge that there are other internal provisions concerning disciplinary proceedings."

In addition, according to the evidence No. 36, the plaintiff sent a mail stating that the plaintiff requested the postponement of the Personnel Committee of this case to the intervenor around December 18, 2013. The mail reveals that the plaintiff's opinion as to the grounds for the disciplinary action was also stated.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is any procedural defect in the dismissal disposition of this case solely on the ground that the intervenor did not accept the Plaintiff’s request to postpone the holding of the instant personnel committee.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to the existence of grounds for disciplinary action and the appropriateness of disciplinary action