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. 1) The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs approximately 90 full-time workers and engages in automobile engine assembly business, etc., and is engaged in intra-company subcontractor business at Hyundai Franchisc, Inc., Ltd. (2) The Intervenor is a member of the National Metal Trade Union, who was employed by the Plaintiff on March 25, 2012 and worked in the said CP assembly.

B. On November 28, 2012, the Intervenor prepared and submitted to the Plaintiff a statement of the purport that “the Intervenor was suffering from a conflict of opinion during his/her service on November 27, 2012, and is divided by reflecting the conflict.” 2) On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension from office for one month on the ground that the Intervenor’s abusive language mixing with the Plaintiff’s employee D’s abusive language mixed with the Plaintiff’s abusive language, and caused damage to the production pumps.

The intervenor alleged that the above disciplinary action was an unfair labor practice and unfair labor practice dealing with disadvantage, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission made a request for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the intervenor's request for remedy on November 20, 2013. While the intervenor applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission, the National Labor Relations Commission made a decision to dismiss the intervenor's request for review on February 24, 2014.

3) On March 5, 2014, the Intervenor: (a) dumped and dumped each other, e and flaped with E and Sinbbing, a flaps; (b) on February 4, 2016, the Intervenor and the team leader F, an employee of the Plaintiff, committed assault with Sinbs attached thereto; and (c) thereby, F suffered injury that requires approximately 14 days’ medical treatment.

(hereinafter “instant misconduct”). 5 On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee on February 29, 2016 and decided to dismiss the Intervenor from office by recognizing the grounds for the following disciplinary actions, and the Intervenor is the same year.

3. 5.o.b.