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. On January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff is ordinarily engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling ready-mixeds, etc. using ten workers at all times as a company established on January 9, 2013.

On August 11, 2014, the intervenor joined the plaintiff as the customer support team leader and has been working for the plaintiff at the employee dormitory provided by the plaintiff from that time.

B. On September 25, 2014, at around 11:30:0 p.m. on September 25, 2014, the Intervenor assaulted C of the Plaintiff’s Jung-gu Government Team Team leader residing in the same dormitory at the same dormitory, thereby causing injury to C, such as cutting the frame of internal walls that need to be treated for about four weeks.

(hereinafter “instant assault act”). C.

The Plaintiff’s employment rules stipulate “an act of assaulting a factory person or other members” as one of the grounds for disciplinary action. The Plaintiff decided to hold a personnel committee for disciplinary action against an intervenor, etc. on October 1, 2014 with respect to the instant assault act on October 1, 2014. Accordingly, the chairperson of the personnel committee publicly announced that the personnel committee was held on the company’s bulletin board and notified the intervenor, etc. thereof on October 1, 2014. The personnel committee held a meeting on October 4, 2014 and decided to “inception” against the intervenor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the intervenor that the intervenor was dismissed as of October 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

(D) On November 10, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against the Plaintiff, etc. with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission for the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action. On January 16, 2015, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the instant disciplinary action did not have any serious procedural defect as much as it has been invalidated, and the ground for the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action is recognized, and the determination of the disciplinary action is also appropriate” (the Intervenor’s employer).