The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, dismissal is justified only when there are grounds for an employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employee’s employment relationship with the employee should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer’s business, the circumstances of the workplace, the status of the employee in question and the job in charge, the motive and circumstance of the act of misconduct, the impact on the company’s business order, such as the risk that

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the part of the Intervenor and the part of the Intervenor did not appear to have any intention to harm the reputation of D and the Plaintiff by spreading false facts to the Intervenor, and the part of the Intervenor did not appear to have any intention to harm the reputation of the Intervenor. However, the part of the Intervenor’s dismissal against the Intervenor constitutes an abuse of disciplinary authority or disciplinary action, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) it is difficult to conclude that the part of the Intervenor and the Intervenor’s assistant intervenor’s employment relationship with the Intervenor was more likely to continue to continue to exist as a cause attributable to the Intervenor; (b) it is difficult to conclude that the part of the Intervenor’s misconduct was derived from personal purpose to obtain favorable results in the election of the chairperson of the union; and (c) rather, the part of the Intervenor, as a representative and operating member of the union and the part of the employee union, could have investigated the facts with the intent of increasing transparency in the process of the employee’s membership; and (d) it cannot be deemed that the part of the Intervenor’s dismissal against the Intervenor constitutes a disciplinary action.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is examined.