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

A. The Plaintiff, established on September 6, 2005, employs approximately 1,700 full-time workers, engaging in the foreigner-only casino business as its main business, and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff on April 10, 2006 and served as a casino with its customer.

B. On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on the ground that “When the Intervenor was related to the crime causing criminal prosecution” under Article 4 subparag. 7 of the Discipline Regulations and Article 4 subparag. 4 of the Discipline Regulations and Article 56(1)7 of the Rules of Employment “if the Intervenor caused damage to the company due to intention or negligence or gross negligence” (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary punishment”), it constitutes “where the Plaintiff caused damage to the company due to negligence or negligence” under Article 4 subparag. 4 of the Discipline Regulations and Article 56(1)7 of the Rules of Employment on the ground that “the Plaintiff transferred the name of himself/herself and prevented the Plaintiff from collecting the amount of provisional seizure by transferring 10% to the name of himself/herself in order to preserve the damage claim arising from occupational embezzlement of B as a husband and wife who is currently under criminal trial due to occupational embezzlement.”

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”) C.

On March 15, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the disciplinary dismissal of the instant disciplinary action. On May 10, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on the ground that “The grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized, but, even if the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, it does not constitute a wrongful act that is likely to cause damage to the trust relationship to the extent that it is impossible to continue the employment relationship, and that the amount of remedy is excessive and unreasonable.”

On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking cancellation of the initial inquiry tribunal, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on August 21, 2017 for the same reasons as the initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). . [This case’s ground for recognition ] without dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, 18 (including numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul’s 2.