2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Intervenor is a domestic corporation, a multinational corporation located in the United States, established on November 21, 1991 and engaged in the manufacturing business, etc. of pumps-related products using approximately 28 full-time workers.

On February 1, 2008, the plaintiff was employed as the head of quality department at the Incheon branch of the intervenor company where approximately 14 full-time workers are employed.

B. On February 15, 2017, the Intervenor opened a personnel committee to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the grounds that “the Plaintiff, in collusion with the executives and employees of the Intervenor, forged and altered the materials and records of the advanced pumps supplied to the trading company, and delivered the advanced pumps to the trading company without origin, by arbitrarily changing the name plates attached to the aforesaid advanced pumps,” and notified the Plaintiff of the disciplinary action on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). C.

On May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff rendered a request for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “The instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was against the presumption of innocence, even though the judgment was not pronounced on the Plaintiff” was against the principle of presumption of innocence, and that it was an excessive disciplinary measure to dismiss the Plaintiff’s wrongful act, including the company’s wrong policy and the company’s implied instruction, was the most serious disciplinary measure, and there is procedural defect in the composition of the personnel committee and the request for review.”

On July 12, 2017, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission cited the Plaintiff’s application for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that the cause of the instant disciplinary action is recognized and that the disciplinary procedure is violated, but it is excessive to take a disciplinary action.”

(A) the first inquiry court of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the first inquiry court of this case") is d.

On August 18, 2017, the intervenor dissatisfied with the initial inquiry court of the instant case and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission.

On November 23, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission recognized the grounds for disciplinary action and made the disciplinary procedure.