1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

[Additional] The defendant and the intervenor asserts to the effect that the disciplinary action in this case is appropriate in the trial. Although the Korean Industrial and Labor Union demanded the intervenor to issue the plaintiff as a worker exempted from working hours, the intervenor delayed the action in this case in the process of corresponding thereto, and the employer who was requested to issue a worker exempted from working hours pursuant to the collective agreement has a duty to issue a person designated by the trade union as the worker exempted from working hours, there is no justifiable reason for the intervenor's delay in issuing the worker's order of exemption from working hours. There is no reason for the intervenor's delay in issuing the worker's order. It seems that it is difficult for the plaintiff, who is a member of the Korean Industrial and Labor Union, to attend the labor union office. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff's misconduct itself is established, there are parts to consider the circumstances leading to the plaintiff's absence from work without permission. This case's determination in full view of various circumstances cited in the first instance court, including the dismissal, constitutes an excessive suspension from work, and thus, the defendant and the intervenor's assertion do not accept the disciplinary action;

2. As the part concerning unfair suspension between the plaintiff and the intervenor in the judgment of retrial of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation should be accepted for reasons of the ground.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion as above.

The appeal by the defendant and the intervenor shall be made.