1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that employs six full-time workers and runs a foul waste collection and transportation business. On September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was engaged in driving business after becoming a stock company C on September 1, 2009. As C was divided into Defendant Company and C, the Defendant Company succeeded to the labor contract with the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company also engaged in the same driving business.

B. On February 1, 2013, the Defendant Company held a personnel committee during the Plaintiff’s attendance and decided to dismiss a disciplinary action by applying Articles 85, 86, and 87 of the Rules of Employment on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an act falling under the following grounds for disciplinary action (each ground for disciplinary action shall be indicated only with the pertinent number), and on February 4, 2013, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the said personnel committee. However, on February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the result of the disciplinary action on February 14, 2013 without filing an application for reexamination during the period of

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”)

1. Defamation of the company and its management, and the subsequent image of the company;

2. Defamation and defamation of, or damage to, the members of the volunteer service personnel;

3. Failure to comply with due instructions of the company;

4. A loss of difference in business of a company and management and related persons caused thereby; and

5. Alteration of business documents (receipts, work logs, etc.) of the company and the holding of such documents;

6. Other acts, etc. that deviate from the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or social norms.

C. As to the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff received a dismissal ruling, and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on November 7, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attached Form of the relevant regulations shall be as follows;

3. Claim for nullification of dismissal

A. The plaintiff's assertion of disciplinary action of this case is based on the following reasons.