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. As to this case, the court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the seven, nine and lower parts of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. The revised part of the judgment on the existence of a disciplinary ground d. The act of causing bodily injury by using the part of this case, which is a dangerous object, to D, a superior of the judgment on the existence of a disciplinary ground d. The act of causing bodily harm to E constitutes “when the intervenor threatened another person within the company” under Article 6(3) Subparag. 4 of the Punishment Act. The grounds for disciplinary action against the intervenor exist. E. Determination as to whether a disciplinary discretion has been abused or abused. The relevant legal reasoning is justifiable only when there are reasons attributable to the worker to the extent that the employer cannot continue the employment relationship with the worker in light of social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employment relationship with the worker in question should be determined by comprehensively examining all the circumstances such as the purpose and nature of the business, the conditions of the workplace, the status and job of the worker in question, the motive and background of the act, the influence of the company’s deceptive behavior on the corporate order, etc., the influence of past work attitude, etc.

In full view of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged prior to the judgment on May 28, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du979, May 28, 2009) and the evidence and evidence mentioned earlier as well as evidence Nos. 8 and 9, which can be seen in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, the instant disciplinary action cannot be deemed to constitute “the case where there is a ground for the disciplinary action against an employee to the extent that it is impossible to continue to maintain an employment relationship in light of social norms.”