1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the part which was used by the court of first instance and the matters alleged by the defendant and intervenor, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(A) The facts alleged by the Defendant and the Intervenor in the trial do not differ significantly from the contents alleged in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment by the first instance court that rejected such assertion by the Defendant and the Intervenor are justifiable). [The part written after dismissal] If the second and third instances of the first instance court, “loading and unloading business” refers to “loading and unloading business”.

From 2th of the first instance judgment, 18th to 20th of the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” is as follows.

In the process of loading and unloading the Plaintiff’s container, the Plaintiff’s loss, etc. of the port transportation union D on July 11, 2016 occurred (hereinafter “the first accident”), and on September 26, 2016, the container crashed on the vessel.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second accident” and, in addition to the second accident and the second accident, collectively referred to as “the instant accident”). On May 23, 201, the first instance court deemed “ May 25, 2017” as “ May 23, 2017.”

On the 3rd to 3rd of the first instance judgment, “Request for remedy to the effect that the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action is excessive” was justifiable, but it is not reasonable to take the 10 additional measures from the personnel committee as disciplinary action against the Intervenor’s responsibility for management of the instant accident. The dismissal of the instant case is the Intervenor’s request for remedy to the effect that the dismissal constitutes a case where the person having authority over disciplinary action significantly abused the discretion in relation to the disciplinary action.”

The 3rd to 5th to 8th of the first instance judgment are as follows.

E. On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff holds a personnel committee and is below the following grounds: