1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this part of the facts are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where five (5) acts from the fourth and fourth (4) of the judgment of the court of first instance are added "the unfavorable treatment and treatment against the plaintiff A" after adding "the unfavorable treatment and treatment against the plaintiff" to "the disciplinary action against the plaintiff A". Thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of

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

A. 1) The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The decision on the review of this case should be revoked on the grounds as follows. (1) The review of the illegality of the disciplinary action related to the improper disciplinary action constitutes a single disciplinary procedure in whole together with the original disciplinary procedure. However, even though the plaintiff A requested an opportunity to attend the Human Copy Committee (Review), it constitutes a serious procedural defect that the intervenor did not grant the plaintiff A an opportunity to explain.

(2) The absence of the grounds for disciplinary action (A) constitutes either the act of the instant demonstration according to the decision of the Plaintiff’s union or the act of obtaining implied authorization or approval from the Plaintiff’s union, and its main purpose is to strengthen the maintenance, improvement, and unity of the working conditions of the Plaintiff’s union members.

The instant demonstration was conducted at a place outside of working hours, and does not constitute a violation of the former Aviation Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Aviation Act, and did not occur by violent means.

In light of this, the instant demonstration constitutes legitimate activities of the Plaintiff’s union, and the Intervenor’s demand for the suspension or withdrawal of the instant demonstration does not constitute a legitimate duty order, and there is no reason to comply therewith.

Therefore, the reason why the plaintiff A did not comply with the direction of the intervenor cannot be the reason for the disciplinary action.

(B) Article 14(8) of the Rules of Employment of the Intervenor stipulates that the Intervenor’s act of impairing or causing damage to the Intervenor is grounds for disciplinary action.