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 Intervenor is running passenger transport business by employing 130 workers. The Intervenor is operating three routes, namely, “the main line,” “the creative route,” “the Changwon region,” “the Changwon region,” and “the Malsan mountain route,” and “the Malsan mountain route,” which operate in the Busan Shipping Area. The Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor on January 11, 2010, and carried out bus operation.

B. On April 8, 2015, the Intervenor took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on April 8, 2015 (i.e., determination related to the previous disciplinary measure and (ii) disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on April 8, 2015 (i.e., dissemination of false facts, (iii) the Intervenor’s act of damaging the intervenor’s image, (iv) the act of labor union division, and (v) the act of maritime action.

The plaintiff, according to the above disciplinary action, had an exclusive engineer's leave or absence from office, who operates a bus on behalf of the exclusive engineer.

B) On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the above disciplinary action constituted an unfair disciplinary action, and filed an application for remedy with the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on July 17, 2015. The Plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on August 13, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for retrial on November 9, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission also dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for revocation of the said decision. However, the court affirmed a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s application on July 14, 2016 on the ground that some of the fraudulent facts spread and part of the Intervenor’s image injury were recognized as a justifiable disciplinary reason, and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

2) On June 8, 2015, the Intervenor took disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on June 8, 2015: ① absence from work without permission; ② absence from work without permission; ③ the Intervenor’s objection to the legitimate business order; and ③ the Intervenor.