1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The intervenor is a company that engages in design technology and business using approximately 1,100 regular workers.

On July 7, 1997, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor and served as a supervisor.

B. On November 3, 2015, the Intervenor held a meeting of the personnel committee to deliberate on the relevant case, and made a disposition for two months of reduction of salary on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duties and failure to perform his/her duties so as to substantially lack his/her ability to perform duties” (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 36(2) and (8) of the Personnel Management Regulations (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

Although the plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review, the intervenor's review personnel committee dismissed it on November 11, 2015.

C. On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary action was an unfair disciplinary action, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On March 16, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the instant disciplinary action was not recognized, and received the Plaintiff’s application for remedy.

On April 27, 2016, the Intervenor appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission. On July 14, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy, setting that the procedure of the instant disciplinary action is legitimate, the grounds for disciplinary action is recognized, and that the disciplinary action is appropriate, and the above initial inquiry tribunal was revoked, and the Plaintiff dismissed the application

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] . [This case’s ground for recognition] . The entry in Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 6 through 11 (including the number of pages) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s instant disciplinary action was unlawful as follows, the instant decision on review was unlawful on a different premise.

1) The personnel management rules of the illegal intervenor in the disciplinary proceedings (Evidence A No. 4 and Article 39) shall be adopted by the personnel committee.