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. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that is established on May 6, 1998 and ordinarily employs about 20 workers and engages in community bus transport business. 2) An intervenor is a person who was employed by the Plaintiff on November 22, 2012 and works as a community bus driver.

B. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the part of the Intervenor, on the ground that the Intervenor filed a civil petition with the Dasan Center and the attitude of normal operation was unfaithful; (b) on the part of the Intervenor, the Plaintiff ordered the Intervenor to suspend working on board without setting a deadline for refusing to submit the Masan Center; (c) on April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Intervenor a certificate of the content that the Intervenor would work until April 30, 2014 and prepare a written notice of the time to work and to be on duty.

On April 28, 2014, the Intervenor sent to the Plaintiff a proof of the content that “the Plaintiff asserted that there has been a resistance call from the civil petitioner, but the Defendant’s civil petition information number is notified to the public petitioner, and the main time is flick. The Intervenor followed the Plaintiff’s use of the same company C and D, which was followed due to the lack of space for the vehicle to board more than the fixed number during the class hours and the attendance hours, on the ground that the sender was erroneous. The sender is aware that it does not exceed 10% of the fixed number of passengers. At the time, the sender was aware that it does not exceed 10% of the fixed number of passengers.” The Intervenor sent a proof of the content that “the Plaintiff becomes aware of the cctV image at the time.”

3) On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the part of an intervenor, the suspension of service on board ends on April 30, 2014; (b) prepared a notice on the time to work and operated; and (c) sent a text message on May 1, 2014, stating that an intervenor would be absent from work without permission. (d) After May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff did not instruct the intervenor to dispatch a vehicle or work on board; and (c) the intervenor did not attend the work.

5 The plaintiff refused to submit a letter of time to the intervenor on May 8, 2014 and is absent from office without permission from May 1, 2014.